Topic #1, Group #2: Most Impressive Winning Streak in Sports

Discussion in 'Sports Debater's League' started by klunderbunker, Jan 3, 2011.

  1. klunderbunker

    klunderbunker Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    17,885
    Likes Received:
    3,399
    This thread is to be used by those in Group #2 (see the stickied thread for rosters if you're unsure of where you are). Any other posts in here will be flagged for spam and deleted. You have four days from the time this is posted to post (as in the time this is posted on Friday, which is approximately when the new topic will go up) your arguments, rebuttals and anything else you want. Best overall debater in that time period receives 10 points, second receives 9, third receives 8, all others receive 7.

    Hitting Lead-Off in this debate is The Crock. He has 24 hours to reply and if he doesn't then it's open season.

    Again: 4 days, best overall poster gets first place points.

    Topic: Most Impressive Winning Streak In Sports (can be pro, college, international, individual or anything else you think of)

    Scores will be posted as soon as the three judges give their scores.

    Go.
     
    #1
  2. The Crock

    The Crock WOO!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    2,296
    In sports, putting together ANY winning streak is tough. From basketball to squash, most competitors will at some point or another not win. That's not to say they lost, maybe they got a draw, but most importantly they did not win. In history, there have been many great streaks, in all kinds of sports. Although, in some sports it is harder and in some it is easier, in a sport like boxing, one wrong move and that's it. You must be precise and at the top of your game to put together a winning streak, so Julio Cesar Chavez' winning streak of 88 straight in professional bouts is something unheard of. Although Rocky Marciano had put together a 49 fight win streak during his career, that is nowhere near as good as Chavez. Chavez was the best at his sport throughout most of his 25 year career, and this streak was just something that he worked hard to earn.

    Chavez' streak began on February 5th, 1980 in his first professional bout and ended on September 10th, 1993, spanning 13 years. He first fought in Mexico then moved on to the United States where he headlined many a Pay-Per-View in his career, and was loved by the fans. In essence, wherever he went the allure of the streak followed. The thing about the streak, though, is that he won most of his fights by KO or TKO, absolutely dominating his opponents. He was considered throughout the streak to be the greatest pound-for-pound fighter on earth and was a champion in many different divisions, spanning from Super Featherweight to Light Welterweight. Chavez' dominance over his sport at the time was cemented when he earned Fighter of the Year honors from Ring Magazine in 1990. He was later, on December 7th, 2010 inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

    Most streaks pale in comparison to this one for one reason, consistency. By saying this I don't mean consistency in winning, because obviously it would not be a streak then, but rather his consistency in how well he performed. He was almost NEVER in trouble in any of his fights during the win streak, and that's not to say he faced bad competition either. He faced all comers and faced fighters of the year, champions, and future hall of famers. Chavez was, simply put, a man amongst boys. The thing about boxing is that if you make one wrong move, you'll lose, so, for 13 years Chavez did everything right. He swept the floor with people becoming a better fighter with every fight.

    Some would use my previous argument against me, though. Maybe Chavez' opponents just made mistakes that he capitalized on, that the streak wasn't that great. In my opinion, that's what makes it so good. To win you must capitalize on the mistakes your opponent makes, that is what makes a good winner. Like in any streak, Chavez adapted to the environment and won the fight. Chavez' streak really changed the sport of boxing as well, as it had to adapt to him. Smaller fighters became the focus, because the fans saw the ability that he had, they wanted to see the streak... so, they got familiar with the smaller guys. His success led to guys like Floyd Mayweather, Manny Paquiao, and Oscar De La Hoya being given the spotlight, guys who would then continue on with what Chavez did and really carry the sport. Although today boxing doesn't mean much, during his time it did, and his streak was a HUGE reason why. His streak is one of the very few that TRULY revolutionized a sport and to say that about a sport like boxing where tradition is key, is truly astounding.

    All in all, I say Chavez' streak is probably the greatest and most important winning streak in the history of sports. Chavez revolutionized boxing and truly dominated the sport. His career is shaped by the streak and the streak itself is, to this day, still a thing of legend. His son, Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., a boxer himself, has even had his career impacted in a big way by it. Julio Cesar Chavez' 88 fight win streak in boxing is the most impressive winning streak in sports history.
     
    #2
    LSN80 and jmt225 like this.
  3. Baller

    Baller WZCW Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    144
    Over the history of sports, there have been many famous winning streaks. However, there is one winning streak who is above all and that belongs to the man known as Edwin Moses. Moses is an American track star whose streak reached a grand total of 107 consecutive finals victories in the 400 meter hurdles event and a 122 victories overall. This streak is number one for a numerous amount of reasons:

    The toughness of 400 meter hurdles

    The sport of track and field is no easy task. In the event that Moses is known for, it is extremely difficult. First off, in every track event you must get out of the gate good. That is no easy task, and especially not 122 consecutive time in a row will one get a great jump that is required to win the race, however Moses did it every time. 400 meters is not a very long race and every millisecond is crucial, and to take advantage of it Moses ran only 13 steps in between hurdles while everybody else ran 14 steps. These 13 steps in between hurdles is something coaches did not even think was possible, however Moses did it, and he made it look easy. The skill that it took to not only master that technique but to do it flawlessly is unfathomable and it just makes what Moses accomplished even more impressive.


    The Duration of the Streak

    Edwin Moses' historic run began in the year August 1977 and did not end nine years, nine months, and nine days, which was in May 1987. To be the best of the best in your competition is one thing but to do it for a practically an entire decade is another. The pure dominance of Moses is unheralded and to do it in a sport like track and field is insanity.

    The Illness and Injury in the Middle of the Streak

    Moses missed an entire season due to injury and illness in 1982 and then as soon he came back he picked up right where he left off to continue his domination of the 400 meter hurdles. The fact that he could miss an entire season and still come back and win manifests the true domination of Moses in his day and shows how impressive his streak really was. And it more then likely would've been a much longer streak if it weren't for Moses getting sick or ill in 1982.

    The Records Broken During the Streak

    During the 107 finals win streak and 122 consecutive win streak, Moses won one Olympic Gold (the only one he competed in during the streak due to US Boycott in 1980) and also broke the World Record 4 times. Moses accolades during the streak is extremely impressive for just one event and to continue to get better throughout 10 years and to continuously beat his record is far none just as impressive as the win streak Moses put together.

    Overall, Moses' streak is the most impressive win streak in the history of sports and when somebody completely dominates the sport of track and field for a decade please come and find me.

    _______________________

    Rebuttal to Chavez

    Julio Cesar Chavez' streak is incredibly impressive however it fails in comparison to Edwin Moses.

    First off, while nobody has gone off to win as many matches in a row as Mr. Chavez has accomplished there are boxers who have gone on to be undefeated in their careers. As Crock pointed out Rocky Marciano pulled off a streak of 49-0 before calling it a career, while the number is not as high the fact that he has gone undefeated tarnishes Chavez' streak just a tad. In fact other boxers such as Ricardo Lopez who went 51-0-1 and his only draw was due to an accidental headbutt stopping the fight. Another famous fighter that is still undefeated is Floyd "Money" Mayweather (41-0). While yes they have not gotten near the streak of Chavez, it is proven that boxers can be undefeated in the sport of boxing, while that can not be said for the 400 meter hurdles.
     
    #3
  4. The Crock

    The Crock WOO!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    2,296
    Sure, boxers like Marciano have retired undefeated, but that will always raise the question of whether they could have kept going, or even how many fights he had a year. Also, I believe that Marciano didn't fight a large variety of fighters, like Chavez did. Bringing up Mayweather is also another flimsy example due to the fact that he hasn't fought all the top guys in his division. You either choose to ignore it, or don't remember, but Mayweather has never fought Pac-Man. There have been many accusations of ducking fighters against Mayweather, so that makes his streak look even less impressive, because a guy like Chavez fought all comers and there was NO QUESTION he was the top guy. So, at the end of the day, while Mayweather and Marciano had impressive streaks they truly pale in comparison to Chavez. I said it before, and I'll say it again, until someone wins 88 straight fights there will be no comparison to Chavez' streak in boxing.
     
    #4
  5. Megatron

    Megatron Justin Verlander > You

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    285
    There's a lot of memorable streaks that have been held within the sports world - the Patriots 21 straight wins in the combined 2006-07 season, two separate 34 game winning streaks in college baseball, the Oklahoma football 47 game winning streak in the 1950s, and, of course, the UCLA mens 88 game winning streak during the 70's. However, there is one that stands above the rest and, which just ended recently, it is the 90 game winning streak by the UConn Women's Basketball team. Here are some jaw dropping facts that these UConn women accomplished during the streak:

    -UConn had trailed all of 134 minutes during the entire winning streak, including only 13 minutes in the second half. That is a whopping 1:29.3 seconds PER GAME. Out of 40 minutes, they averaged of being down less then 2 minutes of that.
    -And many people bash this streak because of their lack of competition, which is also false. In fact, 30 of their 90 wins (an even 33.33%) were against ranked opponents. That is a hell of a lot of ranked teams.
    -There were only 2 games out of the 90 where they won by single digits. Yes, 2 of 90, a shockingly low 2% of their games. And, like I mentioned, they played 30 ranked teams during the streak. Only 2 of them (Baylor and Stanford) managed to keep it within 9 points. That's remarkable.
    -To continue on this single digit stat, the women won all of their first 77 games by double digits. I don't care who you are, if you can win 77 straight games in a row by double digits, you're pretty damn good.
    -There was not one team that lead even a complete half of basketball during the streak. Stanford came close in the 2010 National Championship game, leading for 19:05. The only other team that surpassed 15 minutes was Notre Dame (who had 16:53) on February 22, 2009 (which UConn ended up winning by 10).

    As you can see, some of those stats are simply mind blowing. A few other reasons why their 90 game winning streak is the most impressive of all time:

    It's a team sport. In team sports, obviously you aren't going to be able to carry the team by yourself for 90 straight games. There are going to be games where someone isn't on top of their game, and someone else is forced to pick up the slack. And for 90 tries, someone on UConn picked it up and helped them extend the streak. In team sports, especially in basketball, there are going to be times when players aren't shooting their best and where it just isn't going to be your night. Nobody's shooting lights out every game. However, this team, throughout all of their struggles, pulled off 90 straight wins.

    In this day and age, scouting and game plans are more complex then ever. By this I mean that during the past decade or so technology has increased, which has allowed teams to be able to be scouted much easier which results in a better chance of a teams weaknesses being pointed out and being attacked at. Plus, some teams are going to provide matchup problems. Baylor is a good example of this, with their large (in comparison to other women) center, Brittany Griner. She could be used to attack you all day long with her great size. Back in the 80s, you didn't always know how a team ran their schemes or how their technique was (in sports like boxing). It's become more tricky in figuring out how to beat a team now that theres more film on them.

    Finally, they compiled this streak with 2 undefeated, national championship seasons. Many people know how difficult it is to go undefeated throughout an entire regular and postseason. Ask the 2007 New England Patriots, or the 1985 Chicago Bears, or the 2010 Boise State Broncos, or any professional basketball, baseball, and hockey team. Going undefeated in one season is rare, but to have two, in back to back seasons, is simply remarkable. Especially since this was the only time in NCAA Division 1 Women's Basketball history that one school has had two undefeated championships back to back.

    Honestly, I really can't see any faults at all in this women's basketball team. 90 straight, in a long grinding season like basketball, is amazing.
    ---
    I will have rebuttals to both of you either edited in or posted later (depending on if I get a rebuttal by the time you guys try to argue against this).
     
    #5
  6. hatehabsforever

    hatehabsforever Moderator
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1,647
    Winning streaks in sports are, of course, a tremendous accomplishment. In terms of selecting a particular streak which is more noteworthy than all of the others, that can be a daunting task which ultimately has no right or wrong answer. Do we look at the modern era only, or do we extend our scope back decades or even further, long before any of our times, streaks which can only be assessed in text only? Do we consider team sports only, or do we look at individual accolades as well? If team sports are the focus, are we looking at professional sports, college, or high school? Are we egocentric enough to consider North American sports only, or do we consider things on a more global scale?

    I decided, for the purposes of this discussion, to consider the modern era only. Sure, the Chicago White Stockings may have amassed an impressive win streak back in 1880, but how relevant is that to our discussion today, without really knowing the standard of play at the time, or even the legitimacy of the statistics from over a century ago?

    Individual accomplishments are numerous and some are very impressive. Seeing Martina Navratilova win 74 consecutive matches in 1984 is mind boggling, making a tennis streak by Guillermo Vilas in 1977 of a mere 46 in a row look less impressive, when in reality, it is anything but. However, I chose to focus my discussion upon professional North American team sports.

    The Los Angeles Lakers streak of 33 games in a row, or the Boston Celtics 8 consecutive titles in the NBA are two impressive accomplishments, but it could be suggested that the parity evidenced in the NBA of today was probably not evident back then.

    17 consecutive victories by the Pittsburgh Penguins Is quite the feat, as is the Flyers unbeaten streak of 35 games in 1979.

    In the end, though, especially at this time of the year as they prepare to flex their muscles yet again after a decade of dominance, I decided to give the nod for the greatest streak in professional team sports to the New England Patriots. A win streak of 21 games, spanning 10/03/03 to 10/31/04, more than a full calendar year, this in my mind equates to the greatest winning streak of all time.

    Professional football (North American style) is a physical and grueling affair. It requires physical toughness, speed, agility, elusiveness, etc., on both sides of the football . To pull off a streak of this magnitude, you need to be able to stay healthy, especially at the quarterback position, and if you are unable to stay healthy, you have to be resilient enough, deep enough, and mentally tough enough to overcome adversity. You need to be well coached, and of course it goes without saying that Bill Belichek more than fits the bill in this regard.

    You need to be balanced enough and versatile enough to be able to excel in all sorts of weather conditions, especially in the sometimes less than friendly weather conditions of the northeastern USA. You must be able to withstand factors beyond your direct control, such as the human error of referees which can adversely affect the outcome of any game at any time. And or course, you need to possess the most daunting thing of all, that being lady luck. You can be a supremely gifted team comprising an all-star calibre roster with a coaching staff beyond reproach, but an unlucky bounce, a fluky tip, whatever, and in the blink of an eye, it all comes crashing down and while the end result may be a very impressive season, the winning streak itself is over. If you don't believe me, look at the same franchise a few years later, who were one miraculous quarterback escape and one circus catch away from a perfect season, yet another extremely impressive winning streak, the type of perfection not seen since in Miami in 1972.

    What also makes this streak impressive to me is the fact that the New England Patriots have been the epitome of success for a decade now. The streak which I mention is bookended by tremendous displays of excellence over such an extended period of time.

    No disrespect to the individual accomplishments of Julio Cesar Chavez or Rafael Nadal. All props to De La Salle in high school football, or the UCLA Bruins in college. Congratulations to all of the other worthy candidates to receive attention for their displays of excellence in terms of winning streaks. But from where I am sitting, let's give credit where credit is due. In the greatest professional league in North American sports, namely the NFL, no need to look beyond the New England Patriots of 2003/2004. And here's to hoping that while there is no such winning streak at stake this season, that they can string together three consecutive victories this January and capture the Vince Lombardi trophy one more time.
     
    #6
  7. Megatron

    Megatron Justin Verlander > You

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    285
    The UConn women were in tight games for exactly 2 of their 90 games that they won. Hell they won 26 games by 30-39 points and 15 more by 40-49 and 13 by 50-59. That's 54 games won by AT LEAST 54 points. That's incredibly remarkable. Not to mention the little amount of time that they spent behind (which I pointed out was approx. 1 and 1/2 minutes a game). And they faced tough competition as well (30 ranked teams). And the target on the back grew bigger with them with each win they notched. You know its a big deal when the president calls you to congratulate you on breaking another great streak (UCLA Men's 88 straight).

    (Proof of these stats: http://espn.go.com/ncw/topics/_/page/uconn-huskies-win-streak)

    Also, the man who Chavez lost to, Frankie Randall, was a HUGE underdog (18 to 1 odds on him for the fight). That has to cheapen that streak that Chavez lost to a guy that isn't a hall of famer, went 58-18 (which isn't THAT great for a boxer, even with many of those losses coming at the tail end of his career). It wasn't that one of the best got Chavez for a day, but rather he lost to a heavy underdog. UConn, however, lost to a Top 10 Stanford team that hadn't lost at their own home in 52 games. A top team was finally able to figure them out, and this wasn't as out there (Baylor had UConn in the ropes earlier in the year but lost by a point) as an 18 to 1 underdog pulling off the upset. It looks worse when a underdog beats you compared to a team with similar talent.

    I'd go and argue that this record streak is the thing that has helped put Women's basketball on the map. Will it ever achieve record breaking ratings? No, people just aren't that into women's basketball. However, it did help people take notice and say 'hey, these girls won 90 straight games? that's incredible'. It helped people realize that women can play sports well too and that there truly are some talented college teams out there.

    While I'm not discrediting hurdles, after so many times it becomes a very routine thing to do. Yes, it's always tough to try and jump over hurdles, but there's only the hurdles that are in the way. The hurdles are always placed in the same spot so, if you have the timing down, could do it blindfolded. You might think that's absurd, but really, after constant repetition, you'll know where you have to jump and you know where you'll have to place your feet. Running is constant repetition.

    In basketball, however, you will always have a defender in your way trying to force you to change the direction of the dribble, and (if you're good or their scheme is run a certain way) double teams/traps can be constant. Then you have guys jumping up in the air to try and block your shot. If you can get past all of the defensive stances, double teams, and block attempts, you'll have finally gotten a shot up. Congrats. Now after all of that work you still have to make a shot or the entire series will have been a waste of 35 seconds (the time of a shot clock). In basketball, there's going to be many more (excuse the pun) hurdles to get past then if you were doing a hurdle race. Not only on offense, either. On defense you'll get blind screens, post ups, and quick ball movement to try to defend. Not one basketball game will be run the same. However, in hurdles, it's generally you vs. the hurdles.
    That streak lasted 117 months, which makes it come out to about a race a month (slightly less). In basketball you'll get 2 to 5 days, at most, to recover from one game to go out to your next. It's a short time for a game that features two people face to face for 40 minutes straight. Plus, as you note below, he was ill during some of that streak and didn't race, which added some time where he wasn't doing anything.

    Actually, Iolanda Balas from Romania won 140 straight high jumping competitions (a field event) and it lasted for over a decade (Dec. 1956 - June 1967). So there you go, another person has dominated a field event for a longer period of time, and broke 14 records of her own.

    (Proof: http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/ba/iolanda-balas-1.html)
     
    #7
  8. mrbrownstone

    mrbrownstone Fucking Hostile

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    644
    Likes Received:
    94
    In any sport going undefeated for an extended period of time is no mean feat; it shows immense concentration and skill on the behalf of the person/team who accomplishes it. For me this came down to two streaks, both of which are very impressive. Those are, Australia's 16 match win streak in Test Cricket between 1999 and 2001. The other was the Crusaders 15 match win streak in the Super 12, this streak encompassed the 2002 and 2003 seasons including going the 2002 season unbeaten and winning the competition that year (the sport is Rugby Union for those who don't know). In the end I decided to argue on the side of the Crusaders streak.

    Before I prove that this is indeed the most impressive streak in sport, I want to remind you of one thing. This debate is not over the best streak ever or the longest or anything like that it is about the most impressive. Sure this streak of only 15 matches doesn't sound like much but when you take into consideration the circumstances surrounding it is most certainly is.

    Just to help you out here is a bit of background on this streak. It started on the 23rd of February 2002 where the Crusaders defeated the Highlanders, the streak ended on March 8 2003 in a by losing to the Blues. During this streak they accomplished the feat of 15 wins in a row including going a full season undefeated, this of course means they defeated every team in the competition at least once. It also means that in 2002 they won the entire competition. Now onto why the streak is so impressive.

    Quality of opposition: For those who don't know and I would assume that would be the majority the Super 12 (now Super 15) is a domestic rugby union competition which pits the 12 best teams from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa against one another. With that being the case the quality of competition is very high, it is easily the best Rugby competition in the world. To put it into perspective a winning Super 12 team would likely be able to hold their own or even beat an International team. In any given season there are at least seven teams who have a very good chance of winning, to go through all of that without even conceding one defeat is very impressive.

    Going a season undefeated: This feat is unparalleled, other teams (including the Crusaders themselves) have come close to replicating it but they have always fallen just short ending up with one or two losses. To go for a whole season undefeated is damn impressive, especially given the quality of opposition faced normally you would expect one or two slip-ups along the way but no such thing happened.

    It's a team sport: Rugby is a sport where you rely on the 14 other men around you. All it would take to loose a game is for one person to slip up, one forward pass, one dropped ball, one unnecessary penalty and you can lose a game. However no such thing happened, there were no major mistakes that would cost them a game. That is what makes this streak so much more impressive than some others mentioned in that it only takes one person to **** up to let the whole team down, for the boxing and hurdles streaks they are individual streaks where you have only your self to rely on.

    Toughness of the game: Rugby is a tough sport, I'm sure I'll many won't agree with this but it is a far tougher and more physical sport than NFL. You are going flat out for two halves of 40 minute each, no resting every 2 minuets as seems to be the case in NFL. There is also no protective gear when you get hit hard it ****ing hurts and injuries happen. Anyway I'm getting off topic, my point her is that this is a really hard sport by the time 80 minutes is up you are exhausted and hurting, to be able to play through that and win 15 games in a row is very impressive.

    Travel: Now given the fact that the teams that compete in this competition are from three different countries that will mean a lot of travel. In this particular season the Crusaders played five of thirteen games away from their home ground. Of those five games four of them were played in different countries (the other being played in a different part of New Zealand) with two being played in South Africa and two in Australia. Now it is generally considered the toughest part of the season when an Australian or New Zealand team have to travel to South Africa for games, given that the flight time is far longer than a flight from Aus to NZ. A flight from New Zealand to South Africa takes 12 hours while a flight from New Zealand to Australia takes 4 hours, this will of course cause jet lag. Also there is the fact that the grounds have higher altitudes, meaning you will run out of breath faster. The fact that they managed to see out this tour unscathed is a very impressive feat. It is also a feat that hardly any touring teams manage, generally you would think if you go on a three match tour of SA and come out with one win you have done ok, if you manage more you have done exceptionally well.


    Previous Season: Another thing that makes this streak so impressive is what happened right before it. In the 2001 season the Crusaders finished 10th winning only four of eleven games, keeping in mind there are only 12 teams you will realise that is very bad. To bounce back from such a poor season with an undefeated season with no major changes in either players or coaching staff is very impressive. It takes a lot of mental strength to bounce back from something like that but they managed to.

    Margin of wins: Not only did this team go undefeated but they completely dominated, when they faced off in the last round of the regular season they demolished the Warratahs (the second place team behind them) by 96-19, the highest score line in Super rugby history. Then in the final of the competition they defeated the Brumbies (the defending champions) by 31-13 another very comprehensive victory. This dominance is shown on the table where the Crusaders finished on 51 points at the end of the regular season, including seven bonus point wins (a bonus point victory is ascertained by scoring 4 or more trys in the game). The team in second place only had 39 points.

    Loss: I want to point out that when this amazing streak came to an end in round three of the 2003 season there was no shame in the loss. They were defeated at the hands of the Blues; there are two things to keep in mind here. Firstly the Blues would go on to have their best season ever, winning the competition and losing only one game in the process. Secondly the game was played in front of the Blues home crowd and it is never easy to win away from home.
     
    #8
  9. Little Jerry Lawler

    Little Jerry Lawler Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,809
    Likes Received:
    939
    Some of the winning streaks are quite impressive and I'll give them that. A winning streak such as UConn or UCLA is hard to achieve because one bad game from a team or one bad night from a player can cause it to all go away. I will be focusing on a sport (which is debatable) in which you're not only facing other competitors but you're also facing the playing conditions. The most impressive winning streak is...

    Byron Nelson's 11 Consecutive PGA Tour Wins

    When one is playing golf, he or she is playing against maybe around 100 other golfers in the span of 4 days. That in and of itself makes even winning one tournament hard let alone 11 in a row. The course is an obstacle as well as Mother Nature. One day, it will be all sunny and not a trouble in the world. The next day, gusts of wind can affect even a chip shot. One hole can make or break a golfer such as the 17th hole at TPC Sawgrass. You have to be on your game for 4 days as opposed to 60 minutes of football or 48 minutes of basketball.

    Some will dispute that Nelson's streak isn't as impressive because he only won the 1945 PGA Championship and the field was weak because of the war but I say balderdash. Two of the greatest golfers of their generation were still playing in Sam Snead and Ben Hogan. Nelson won more than half the tournaments in 1945 (18 out of 35). Nobody has matched that even the great Tiger Woods who I say competed in a weaker field than Nelson did. He also finished second another 7 times which means he won or placed second in five out of seven tournaments. He also set the record for scoring average which stood for an amazing 55 years.

    Nelson's streak was one that had to require being on top of your game every single day and one that a bad drive, putt, or round could be the difference between victory and agony. Greg Norman, Phil Mickelson, and Jean Van de Velde can attest to that. Winning one tournament is hard to achieve for some of the premiere golfers in the game regardless of era. Eleven is legendary.
     
    #9
  10. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    Probably because won 87 straight fights, not 88. If you're going to make the opening post, the least you could do is get your facts straight.

    You can't simply use rankings as a justification for stiff competition. Is beating a ranked women's team really that impressive? Once you get outside of the top 10 or so there really isn't much parity. You can't just go by an arbitrary rankins system and claim their competition was difficult.

    Like a said before, the competition in the women's game just isn't the same. It isn't sexism, it's a fact. Outside of a handful of programs (UConn, Tennessee, Standford) there really aren't that many formidable opponents out there.

    Also, when they did struggle it was on the biggest stage of them all. Against Stanford in the national title game last year when the most people were watching, they **** the bed. That was one of the worst basketball games I've ever watched. On a stage when they had a chance to show how good they were they just proved why women's basketball is considered inferior.

    Back to some of yours later, but I'm surprised no one has picked the best option yet, which is UCLA Men's Basketball, who won 88 games in a row from 1971 to 1974. They won 3 national titles during the streak, had an average margin of victory of over 23 points per game, and are considered one of the greatest sports teams of all time.

    Obvisously this has been compared to the UConn streak a lot recently, but it really shouldn't be an argument. Men's basketball, even in the 70's, consisted of a much hihger level of competition than any form or women's basketball. UCLA's 15 single digit victories during the streak are a testament to this parity and how they were able to fight adversity. Isn't it more impressive to win multiple close games over quality opponents throughout a streak than it is to blowout a bunch of ****bums with two or three legitimately good teams mixed in?

    The higher level of competition should more than make up for the fact that UConn won a measely 2 more games than UCLA. Just because it's a streak that happened recently it doesn't mean it's the best one ever. Let your young minds explore the past a bit.
     
    #10
  11. Baller

    Baller WZCW Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    523
    Likes Received:
    144
    .
    The New England Patriots 21 game streak is another incredibly impressive streak, however, the Patriots did something that the 1972 Dolphins could not, and that is to it from Game 1 of the season to the Super Bowl. The Patriots streak started after a 2-2 start and carried onto the next season. That takes amazing skills to go on and win 21 games in a row including the playoffs, however most people don't remember the Patriots for that, I remember the Pats for winning 3 in 4 Super Bowls, while I remember 1972 Dolphins for their undefeated season.


    As impressive as the Connecticut Huskies streak of 90 games is, this simple reason is why UConn's run is not as impressive as Ed Moses.

    College Recruiting/Lack of Elite Teams

    College sports especially women's basketball where there is only a dozen elite schools in the country, and there is are many great high school prospects around the country, and the majority of them will go to these 12 schools. It really limits the amount of competition and UConn dominates the recruiting process, to give them the best players. I know this is not to the fault to UConn but to me the fact that you can stack your rosters and it makes for less competition hence hurting the amazing streak by UConn.

    For Moses' event everybody is on an equal playing field, you are by yourself and it requires your own skill to dominate the event. Granted UConn definitely had to perform their skill on the court, but they were able to stack the roster on their side.

    The Streak Has Been Done Before

    The UCLA Bruins streak of 88 games is a more impressive streak the the Huskies due to the fact that there was more parity in the men's division at that time compared to the women's division of now. There is maybe 4 or 5 teams that have a realistic shot at winning a championship with 6 or 7 other quality teams, however when the Bruins went on there run there was a good 15-20 teams that were extremely capable of winning a title.

    Wow, I honestly have not heard of that streak but instead of saying track and field, I should've focused on track which is what Mr. Moses competed in, and to my knowledge nobody has ever created such a streak as Mr. Moses, even the fastest man on the planet Usain Bolt could ever put together such a streak. But good job Megatron on disproving me with a field streak.

    There is nobody in track events that could accomplish such a streak as Mr. Moses however there have been multiple streaks on the basketball court, football field, boxing ring, etc. Yes a field streak has been done but there will be nobody who could do something as remarkable as what Edwin Moses did on the track and that is fact.
     
    #11
  12. The Crock

    The Crock WOO!

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,644
    Likes Received:
    2,296
    Yes, I am very well aware of that. I did it in 2 posts. I noticed it last night, but it was too late to edit. Regardless, you get the point.

    Saying that they faced tough competition to me is a bit of a cop out. In Women's College Basketball there aren't many TRULY elite teams. Sure, there are 15 I'd say that are great programs, but past that you don't have much. UConn pretty much "monopolized" recruiting and picked up all the star players so to me it really isn't any surprise that they won their games so handily. Also... COME ON, the President calls every championship team/team that does well. He's a huge sports fan, it's not that special.

    Just because Chavez didn't lose to a Hall of Famer doesn't make him worse. Look at a guy like Sammy Angott, a boxing HOF inductee. His career record was 99 wins, 28 losses, and 8 draws. Here's another guy, Joe Brown. 104 wins, 44 losses, and 13 draws, another HOFer right there. Trust me, Randall had 18 losses in his career, that's not that bad, and as a matter of fact he was a damn good boxer too.


    That is a big thing in college basketball, but not THE thing. Look at Candace Parker and how much attention she got Women's Basketball. People talked about her all the time, and that sure as hell got them attention. Then again, things like having women participate in NBA All-Star Weekend don't hurt either. Sure, it's an impressive streak and people certainly talked about it, but I don't think THAT was the thing that led people to thinking "Hmm, these girls really can play."
     
    #12
  13. Megatron

    Megatron Justin Verlander > You

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    285
    Beating the teams the way they did sure as hell is impressive.

    UConn has to go out and get the same players that these other colleges get. It's not like they're getting WNBA players. It's fair game for everyone, and you shouldn't ridicule UConn for getting the right players to fit their scheme for 90 straight games.
    They struggled, yet they still won the national title, which makes it more impressive. As bad as they played for that game, they still managed to win their 2nd straight national championship.

    And if the UCLA men's streak happened now there could be plenty of instances when it's seen that they play like ****. However, their streak happened over 30 years ago, well before anyone on this forum could remember their dominance. Why should they get a free pass because they played in the 70's and no one here has seen their ****ty play (and obviously they weren't great every game, seeing as 15 of their games were in single digits), yet UConn is ridiculed for having one bad game, after 77 straight dominating performances, which they won, against the #2 team in the nation who has some pretty good players as well. Sorry they couldn't blow out the #2 team in the nation to prove their worth. In fact, I'd say that close win helped them, because it showed that they could win, even with adversity and against equal competition.

    I'd like to point out that the UConn women won by an average margin of victory of at least 30 points per game against their equals. 23 is obviously impressive, and these women showed that they could do even better.

    I see, so when UCLA wins close games they deserve credit because it's against good competition, but when UConn wins close games they're **** on because they aren't as good as what people think and they were just beating up on bad teams (even though they were considered good by the people that follow the sport). Nice to see blatant contradictions with this gem.

    And explain to me how these teams UCLA played against were so great when you weren't even alive when the streak was happening. The UConn women were thrashing teams that were considered to be some of the best by the people that watch them.

    And blowing people out day in and day out is more impressive because it's most IMPRESSIVE streak. How can you look and see what UConn has done (77 straight wins by double digits) and say that it isn't impressive. I don't care WHO you play, sometimes you are going to have a bad day, no matter if you're Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson or any other great basketball player. Yet, these UConn women won their 77 straight games handily, had a close call against Stanford, then pulled off 12 more in the next season, without one of their best players ever (Tina Charles).

    It's not just that UConn had more, but HOW they did it - by absolutely murdering their opponents (save for Stanford once and Baylor this past year).

    And just because the record streak was broken by women instead of men doesn't mean that they shouldn't get the respect they deserve.

    So you're going to go against UConn simply because they recruited better players then any school in the country? It's not like this is Kemba Walker and the rest of the UConn Men's Basketball team playing against these women teams. It's Maya Moore and UConn going against the same sex. Why not blame the other schools for not matching these women up in talent? Punishing them for getting the best players is ridiculous.

    And UConn had to work as a cohesive team night in, night out, to win their games. It's not like it was 'spread everyone out and let Maya Moore drive to the lane'. You COULDN'T just rely on yourself, otherwise you're gonna get dominated 10 times out of 10. Nobody can score all of the points, get all of the rebounds, and make all of the assists by themselves.

    And there you are again trying to punish UConn for getting the best players to fit their system. There's more then 15 talented womens basketball players in the United States. Other schools can do the exact same thing UConn has done, and nobody is restricted from anyone. To say that they shouldn't get credit for finding the best players for Geno's system is stupid.

    The streak has been done, but UConn did them better by two games.

    And can someone please name all of these great teams? Just because its a mens basketball team doesn't automatically make them stiffer competition. I want to hear of these 15-20 teams that are so called 'capable of winning a title'. Hell, now there might not be more then 10 or so real contenders to the national championship. All of the rest make cinderella runs that nobody would have expected (Butler, George Mason).

    This is the same argument that I've just responded to twice now. You're going to punish Geno for getting the best players to fit his system? Why not punish the teams that failed to get these recruits and couldn't figure out how to beat him? And it's not like UConn stole every single recruit out there. They can only field a dozen or so on a team, and there's definitely more then just 12 talented players in women's college basketball.

    But you're going to say that losing to a heavy underdog is good thing? Chavez was expected to slaughter Randall, for good reason, but one of the best all time (in his prime) couldn't beat Randall? When UConn lost, they lost to a team of their equal skill, and showed that there were other teams that could play ball in Womens College basketball.

    These girls broke a record that people thought would be untouchable for the text of time. Not one person could've guessed that these girls would take this streak to 90 games. It really put them on the map. Their games were constantly put on ESPN and ESPN2 as they got closer because people were interested at how long this streak could last.

    And Candace Parker may be the talk for a decade or so, yet (unless they get overtaken) this UConn women's streak will be held in the highest regard as the best of all time.
     
    #13
  14. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    Not really. Playing a completely outmatched opponent and beating them by 30 is much easier and less impressive than playing a comparable opponent and beating them in a tight game.

    That isn't the argument. I'm not saying that UConn didn't do a great job of recruiting and getting superior players. But because they were so much better than everybody else their streak actually becomes less impressive. With the talent they had compared to everybody else, they should have won 90 games in a row.

    So you're saying being in a tight game and fighting for a tough victory is more impressive than blowing out ****ty opponents? Thanks for seeing my side.

    Once again, you're making my point. Facing adversity and tight games only makes a streak more impressive, which is why UCLA has such an edge on UConn. They were involved in way more tight games against good teams, and came out victorious everytime.

    The point I was trying to make about the national title game was who UConn had the worst game on the biggest stage with the most people watching, which certainly took away from their streak some. UCLA, which won 3 titles druing their streak to UConn's, had an average margin of victory of over 10 points a game in championship contests against great teams with players like Larry Finch, Larry Kenon, and Howard Porter.

    It's not simply about numbers, that's just a silly way to argue. The fact that UConn beats Howard by 80 points is much less impressive than UCLA beating Notre Dame by 10 points.

    I've said it before, UConn **** their pants in the one game where the most people were watching and played some of he worst basketball I've ever seen. It's not just that it was a close game, it was that it was a close game where they played absolutey horribly during the only time they were on a big stage all year.

    What the **** kind of argument is that? Because I wasn't alive the teams UCLA played weren't good? Once again, that's just a silly, juvenille way to argue. You can't just say my argument doesn't work because I wasn't alive and follow that up with some vague statement saying UConn was good without any real evidence. Here's a list of high quality, national powers UCLA played during the streak and how many times they beat them, not to mention the mid level teams that were talented as well, which is the big difference between the men's and women's game.

    USC (6) Long Beach State (2), Notre Dame (4), Stanford (6), and San Francisco (2).

    You argued above than UConn's win against Stanford was more impressive because it was a close game, but now are arguing that blowing out a bunch of cupcakes is more impressive. I'm confused ot what you're trying to do here.

    Pretty sure if they murdered anyone they'd be incarcirated by now.

    Yes it absolutely does matter because the women's and men's games are completely different. Men's division 1 college basketball is and always has been much deeper than women's college basketball. The difference in competiton between UConn and UCLA is significant. Just because UConn's streak was a few games longer it most certainly doens't mean it was more impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
     
    #14
  15. Megatron

    Megatron Justin Verlander > You

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    285
    UConn has beaten many top 15 teams badly throughout the streak, though. In 08-09 they beat #4 OU by 28, @ #2 UNC by 30, #10 Louisville by 28, Louisville again when they were #7 by 39, Stanford by 19, and Louisville yet again by 22.

    In 09-10 they beat @ #10 Texas by 25, #2 Stanford by 22, #11 Florida State by 19, #7 UNC by 41, #7 Duke by 33, #12 OU by 16, #3 Notre Dame by 24, #8 West Virginia by 33, #11 Georgetown by 22, Notre Dame again when they were #8 by 24, another win over ND when they were #7 in the Big East tournament by 15, #8 WVU by 28, #11 FSU by 40, and #14 Baylor by 20.

    There's a lot of quality teams there, and UConn stomped all over them rather easily. All of these teams are top 15 because they have talent. It's never easy to blow out teams, especially highly ranked teams, each time you go out.

    There's plenty of talented teams that they've simply dominated from tip-off. And yes they had more talent, but, especially in basketball, sometimes the best teams won't win every single game, because there's going to be days when you're shooting cold and just aren't into it. So to say that anybody should win 90 games in a row is absurd, especially now that there's more talent coming into womens basketball annually.

    No, what I'm saying is they played very bad (for their standards) and still managed to win that game. If anyone else plays like the way UConn did in that game, they're probably gonna lose. It's impressive that they could play the way they did and still beat a team of equal footing.

    I should've clarified, it was impressive that UConn won because of the way they played, yet they still pulled it out.

    And because one game where they played flat (even though they still won) it takes away from their streak? That's really not fair to UConn, especially after they wiped the floor with Louisville the year before anyways (in their first National Championship game). They were due for having a close game after going 77 in a row decided by double digits. To say that one bad game, regardless when it was, takes away their merit some is absurd.

    It's not just them beating Howard by 80. I gave you a great list of top 15 teams that they've dominated in the 2 year stretch. Beating top 15 teams like that IS more impressive.

    To expect them to win handily in the biggest game of the season is absurd. Stanford has talent, and deserves credit with keeping the game within a close margin. And they've had many big games before and won decisively (vs. ND in 09 which was the first Women's game on College Gameday, their multiple top 5 matchups). To punish them for ONE bad game is dumb. That's like saying UCLA should be punished for only beating Villanova by 6 in the NCAA Final in 71.

    Don't give me the argument that the men's talent is deeper so it shouldn't be expected that they win by 20, while UConn should. Stanford is a hell of a team, and UConn should have no shame for only winning by 6.

    That's 20 of 88, UConn has at least 22 against good teams (counting the ones I listed at the top and Baylor + OSU, both top 10 teams, from this year) and has 2 more. UConn has played their fair share of quality opponents, and to say they haven't is just wrong.

    Again, I should've clarified by saying that it was impressive because they played like **** and still pulled it out. 77 straight blow outs (plus a few after) is more impressive then winning a bunch of close ones. It's tough to go out there, day in, day out, and win decisively.

    UConn has played their fair share of top 15 teams (at least 22 by my count) along with a few more ranked. It's not like UConn was playing North Dakota State, Tennessee-Chattanooga, and Florida Internationals every game. They were taking it to very talented teams almost with ease. To devalue their streak because 'the talent isn't as deep' isn't right with the amount of great teams that they've played.

    And it certainly should matter that they had a longer streak, because it's the same sport (college basketball) and they've both played great opponents. UCLA's was great, but UConn's was a little bit better because it lasted longer. Winning 90 games in any sport is amazing, and it should definitely be thought of as the best, because of the large margins of victory and high caliber teams they've beaten.
     
    #15
  16. LSN80

    LSN80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    2,743
    Winning is the essence of why most of us watch sports in the first place. We all have our home teams that we root for, and seeing them go on a streak makes watching even more entertaining. One of my favorite memories from being younger was watching the Penguins go on a 17 game winning streak, and the high drama that was attached to each and every shot, save, and goal. The streak really felt special. When they lost it officially in a tie of all things, I was disheartened. And while this streak was impressive, it doesnt top the list for me.

    There are so many ways to go here, and so many moments to pick from. I just referenced the high drama of the Penguins winning streak, which still stands 17 years later in hockey. Other great ones of note include the Patriots 23 game winning streak in 2003-2004, as well as the recent UConn women's basketball team winning 90 straight. Regardless of how I feel about women's basketball, my hat's off to these women.

    I say all of this not to ramble, but to make a point. Team victories, winning streaks, and achievements are important, but to me, its the individuals that accomplish winning streaks of some kind that are most impressive. In most major sports, its considered a team game. Generally speaking however, a team streak is generally ended by a screw up not by an entire team, but by an individual player. As much as we hear about wins being "team wins" and losses being "team losses", its generally not true with the best. Its usually because one player makes the difference. Even though its not a winning streak, its Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak that began the coining of the phrase "streak" to this day that we use. I think LJL, Crock, and Baller are on the right track by listing individuals rather then teams. I will do the same, but i first want to comment on a few of the other posts.

    Not a bad choice, but not one I would put at Number 1. For one, their own league doesn't even recognize the streak as being 21 games, its considered to be 18. Furthermore, the Colts broke the "official" record last year when they won 23 regular season games in a row. Its hard to consider this the greatest streak ever when it doesn't even earn top dog within its own organization. My other minor quibble is with how this came about, and ended. They fell in the regular season to my Steelers, then came back in the AFC Championship Game and smoked the Steelers 41-27 in a game that wasn't even that close. There was no parity whatsoever, so it takes a little bit of shine off the streak for me.

    These are incredible stats, but the exact reason why I would argue this isn't the most impressive streak in history. The lack of competitiveness in these games is alarming. Say what you will for the dominance, but it takes away from the competiteness of the sport. If the game isn't competitive, it loses alot of luster. Without competition, its hard to be considered the most impressive.

    Let me give you an example to further make my point. Lets say youre the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, and Im #2. You go on to defeat me in straight sets 6-1, 6-0, 6-1. Not a whole lot of competition there, and I dont really look like a credible opponent for you to make your name off of, do I? This is the same problem I see with the UConn's Women Basketball team. They've trailed less then 2 minutes per game, on average. Of the 90 wins, only 2 have been in single digits. Geno Auerioma can spin it however he likes, but there's UConn and everyone else in Women's Basketball. There's a lack of real competition that detracts from the impressiveness of the streak. Dont get me wrong: Winning 90 games in a row is an impressive feat. But the way they've done it on a consistent basis? Not so much.

    Dude, I am almost with you here, I really am. Not only do golfers have to battle the course and the elements, but golf is the most psychologically taxing game there is. The idea of sustaining one's game throughout 4 days as compared to 60 minutes in football or 9 innings in baseball as you said is far more difficult. Not only did Nelson do this once, but he did it eleven times. He's received universal praise from other golf legends such as Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods for this achievement. But.....

    We were at war at the time, and it certainly watered down the field. The tour was significantly weakened as a result. Some of the top challengers were there, but its quite often in golf that the top players dont win the tournaments, as its the second tier that tend to capture alot of championships as well. One has to wonder if that would be the case here. While he impressively won two Master's before this streak, he never approached this streak again. This would leave me to believe that the war and the resulting watered down field did indeed play a bigger part then you would think. Couple that with the fact that he won only one major during the year, and that also leads me to believe that this is not the most impressive streak of all time. Its close, darn close, but its not number one in my mind.


    So, as much as it pains me as a die-hard Steeler fan to say it.....

    Tom Brady's ongoing 28 game winning streak at home is the greatest streak of all time.

    Unlike so many of the other streaks mentioned and with all due respect toward them, they lacked the competiveness that Brady sees on a weekly basis. Despite his streak, he's not considered by some to even be the best QB in the NFL. This streak began in 2006, and has lasted through the current day in 2011. That's over four years of not losing a single football game at home folks. That's excellence in every way, and for several reasons.

    Parity: Unlike an Edwin Moses or the UConn women, Brady plays in a league chalk full of excellent QB's. Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Aaron Rodgers are listed in the same breath as Tom Brady as the best QB'd right now in the game. But unlike Brady, none of these QB's have come close to this streak. The man whose streak he broke when he hit 26? None other then perhaps the greatest QB of all time, Brett Favre. A great achievement indeed.

    Value to team:
    As I stated earlier, a player, especially a QB, can be the difference between whether or not a team wins or loses a game. When Tom Brady injured his knee against the Kansas City Chiefs in the first game of 2008, the Patriots lost 3 games at home this year. So in one year with a pretty good QB in Matt Cassell, they couldnt maintain the team streak. But three and a half years strong, Tom Brady's personal streak is still intact. Anyone need further proof of how this streak is all about him? The average margain of victory with Brady at home in full seasons since the streak began is 20(2007), 16(2009), and 15(2010). Those numbers are mind boggling when you really consider them. The average margain of victory when Brady missed the 2008 season at home? 4. The numbers there speak for themselves. He also has averaged .65 interceptions per home game during the streak, and 2.7 TD passes. Both are tops in the league in home games from any QB from 2007 and on.

    Beating good teams: Look, this isn't the UConn women or the UCLA men. In 2010 alone, New England with Brady at home has defeated Green Bay, Baltimore, the Jets, and Indianapolis. The average margain of victory against these playoff teams was 13(15 overall), which is mind boggling in showing Brady really has been consistent when playing the good teams and the bad at home. Its not just 2010 either, as Brady's margain of victory against playoff teams at home in 2009 was 12(16 overall), and 16(20 overall) in 2007. So Brady's performance hasn't wavered regardless of the competition.

    Bouncing back from injury: When Brady injured his knee in 2008, there were thoughts that his career could possibly be over, or that he wouldn't be the same player anymore(ask Carson Palmer about that one.). Instead, he responded by winning the Offensive Player of the Week 3 times that year, all games at home. He also was named the Comeback player of the Year. This year, he averaged 2.4 TD's at home this year, and only .3 interceptions while being named Offensive Player of the Month for December. 3 of those games were, you guessed it, at home.

    The times, they are a changing: Its easy to argue that The Patriots went 16-0 in 2007, and those 8 home wins there didn't hurt the streak. But alot of changes have taken place since then. Brady is no longer throwing to the 2007 corps of Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Dante' Stallworth, and Jabar Gaffney. Their former feature back in Laurence Maroney is gone. All of those players, including Randy Moss and his 98 catches and 23 TD's. The only remaining receiver is Welker, whose catches have dropped drastically by 27 from that season compared to this one. Brady is now throwing to Brandon Tate, Danny Woodhead, Julian Edelman, Rob Gronkowski, and Aaron Hernandez. While all of them are talented, theyre young and raw, but Brady has made each of them look like seasoned veterans. His ability to do so has been a huge part of the reason Ben-Jarvis Green Ellis has had such a successful season rushing the football.

    Final Thoughts:I really dislike Tom Brady, alot. He's broken my heart many a time as a die-hard Steelers fan. But there's no denying the incredible nature of having a home winning streak of over four years, after bouncing back from knee surgery. The statistics don't lie, and there's no luck involved. There's no possible way to attribute this to Bill Bellicheck, his teammates, or luck because they lost 3 home games during the season he missed, and failed to make the playoffs. Brady will enter the 2011/2012 season with a chance to expand on this winning streak, and theres no reason to think that he wont based upon the 31 point win he and the Patriots put up in their last game of the season, at home. For these reasons, I submit that Tom Brady's 28 game home winning streak is the greatest winning streak of all time.
     
    #16
  17. Megatron

    Megatron Justin Verlander > You

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    285
    Look at the stats I gave to GD. 22 wins over top 15 teams, with all but 2 being by double digits. That's quality competition.

    And again, winning 77 straight games by 10 or more is better then winning many more close ones because it takes a lot out of you to go out each and every game and whip the tails off your opponent, especially when 1/3 are against ranked teams (they played 30 ranked teams total, the ones I didn't include in teh 22 were ranked in 15-25 spots) and sometimes your shot isn't gonna fall. Say all you want about the 'lack' of competition, but not only is the women's game becoming more deeper each year, but they played a great deal of good teams. Also, I'll continue to reiterate this, expecting a team to dominate each game, no matter who you play, the way they did, is absurd.

    This is an impressive streak, but you forgot one important thing:

    The Patriots, with Brady at home, lost to the Ravens 33-14 this past season in the NFL Playoffs (2009-10).

    Therefore, with that loss, whether the league recognizes it or not, cuts off the streak at 20, 6 short of Favre. You can argue 'oh but the league won't recognize it since it was in the playoffs' BUT you and I both know that that loss counts the same as any other, and Brady's streak really shouldn't be his since they lost when he was only at 20. I don't see how this can be the most impressive streak when it's not even the highest in its own category (most home wins in a row).
     
    #17
  18. LSN80

    LSN80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    2,743
    I read the stats, carefully, before I made my comments. The gist of my argument hasn't changed. Did you read my tennis example? If you were #1 and I was #2 and you whipped my ass, then player #3 and so on over and over, questions would begin to arise about the parity in said sport. You would be considered to have far more talent then me, and the competitiveness of the game would drop. So would the luster of you beating me over and over. That's what's going on with the UConn women. They may be beating the "top ranked" teams, but its like the Harlem Globetrotters vs the Washington Generals. The cream always rises to the crop, regardless of whether the shots are dropping or not. I played basketball in high school, and it was much easier winning the games we got up big early(as UConn has) because the opposite of your argument was true: We didnt have to expend as much energy.

    I recognize that, and as someone who hates Brady and the Pats, that day made me happy. But....... it wasn't a regular season game. His streak, the one Im arguing and the NFL recognizes, is the consecutive regular season game victories at home. So what youre pointing out to me here is essentially irrelevant because of the fact that this is a regular season streak. You may not recognize it, but the NFL does.
     
    #18
  19. gd

    gd Plump, Juicy User

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    1,275
    Please stop saying that. Just because a women's team is ranked in the top 15, why does that automatically mean that they are quality competition? Any team outside of the top 5 is a walk in the park for UConn, they may have had 5 tough games during their whole streak.

    As for the Brady streak, sure it's good and all, but like Megatron said, the loss to the Ravens in the playoffs really taints in. Also, consecutive home wins in quite a specific and stat, much less impressive than overall consecutive wins. 28 straight games overall would be impressive. Winning 28 regular season games in a row in the comforts of your own home is considerably less impressive, for sure.
     
    #19
  20. LSN80

    LSN80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    2,743
    Part of my argument was that its personal accomplishments that truly make a streak worthwhile. To me, it doesn't matter where you win the games any more then it matters where you won the Super Bowl that year.

    Again, the point of my argument is this. Its a record acknowledged by the NFL during the regular season, by the NFL. The Patriots were unable to sustain their own team home winning streak when Brady went down with a very good Matt Cassell at QB. In fact, they went 11-5 that season and lost 3 games at home. So the comfort of one's own home doesn't fly there. It wasn't until Brady returned to a lesser team that the home winning streak resumed, which in itself shows how impressive it is. I fail to see the relevance of the playoffs here when its the NFL record within the confines of the rule.
     
    #20
  21. CelticCorey

    CelticCorey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    64
    So many winning streaks throughout sports have been nothing short of impressive, but nothing comes close to The Boston Celtics winning eight straight NBA Championships

    Think about all of this and here is why I say this.

    #1 NO TEAM in NFL History has won three straight Super Bowls and even in the pre Super Bowl era nobody won THAT many in a row.

    #2 The most World Series ever won in a row is 5 by the Yankees from 1949-1953, eclipsing when they won from 1936-1939. It's impressive if somebody three peats like when the A's did it from 1972-1974. Nobody has three peated or even repeated since the Yankees won their third straight in 2000. NO TEAM in N.L. History has EVER three peated and even then only THREE TEAMS in N.L. history have even repeated as World Series champs- the 1907-1908 Chicago Cubs, the 1921-1922 New York Giants, and the 1975-1976 Cincinnati Reds.

    #3 Some would argue that the Stanley Cup is the hardest championship to win in all of sports and I see a case. No team has repeated since the Red Wings in 1998. The Montreal Canadiens once won five in a row. I believe they also had a four in a row run. The New York Islanders from 1979-1983 won four consecutive Stanley Cups before the Edmonton Oilers won five in seven years.

    #4 The NBA has seen its share of three peats- the Bulls did it twice, the Lakers did it in the early 2000's and have a chance this year. The Bulls very well could have challenged this in the 90's. Don't say it was because Michael Jordan wasn't around either. The Bulls still made the Eastern Conference Finals in 1994 without him before bowing out to the Knicks and when Jordan returned the next year with #45 they lost to the Magic. They came so close with six in eight years but it did not happen.

    I conclude that it is hard to win a championship. It is even harder to repeat. To repeat three times, four times, and even five times shows you have a place amongst the greatest dynasties in sports history and you are no doubt the best. Eight repeats is just absurd and is unprecedented that no one has managed achieve besides those great Bill Russell-led Celtics teams.
     
    #21

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"