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

[klunderbunker]

This thread is to be used by those in Group #1 (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 Tdigle. 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.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

No streak in sports is greater than boxer Sugar Ray Robinson's 91 consecutive win streak from 19 February 1943 to 16 June 1951:

Source:boxrec.com

1943
2/19 Jackie Wilson, Majority Decision Win (=MJW), 10 (number of rounds)
2/26 Jake LaMotta, UDW (=Unanimous Decision Win), 10
4/30 Freddie Cabral, Boston, KO (=Knockout), 1
7/1 Ralph Zannelli, UDW, 10
8/27 Henry Armstrong, UDW, 10

1944
10/13 Izzy Jannazzo, KO, 2
10/27 Lou Woods, Technical Knockout (=TKO), 9
11/17 Vic Dellicurti, UDW, 10
12/12 Richard "Sheik" Rangel, TKO, 2
12/22 George Martin, TKO, 7

1945
1/10 Billy Furrone, TKO, 2
1/16 Tommy Bell, UDW, 10
2/14 George Costner, KO, 1
2/26 Jake LaMotta, UDW, 10
5/14 Jose Basora, Win By Points (=WBP), 10
6/15 Jimmy McDaniels, KO, 2
9/18 Jimmy Mandell, TKO, 5
9/26 Jake LaMotta, Split Decision Win (=SDW), 12
12/4 Vic Dellicurti, UDW, 10

1946
1/14 Dave Clark, TKO, 2
2/5 Tony Riccio, TKO, 4
2/15 O'Neill Bell, KO, 2
2/26 Cliff Beckett, KO, 4
3/4 Sammy Angott, UDW, 10
3/14 Izzy Jannazzo, UDW, 10
3/21 Freddy Flores, KO, 5
6/12 Freddy Wilson, KO, 2
6/25 Norman Rubio, WBP, 10
7/12 Joe Curcio, KO, 2
8/15 Vinnie Vines, KO, 6
9/25 Sidney Miller, KO, 3
10/7 Ossie Harris, WBP, 10
11/1 Cecil Hudson, KO, 6
11/6 Artie Levine, KO, 10
12/20 Tommy Bell, UDW, 15
(Wins Vacant World Welterweight Title)

1947
3/27 Bernie Miller, TKO, 3
4/3 Fred Wilson, KO, 3
4/8 Eddie Finazzo, TKO, 4
5/16 Georgie Abrams, SDW, 10
6/24 Jimmy Doyle, TKO, 9
(Retains World Welterweight Title)
8/21 Sammy Secreet, KO, 1
8/29 Flashy Sebastian, KO, 1
10/28 Jackie Wilson, TKO, 7
12/10 Billy Nixon, TKO, 6
12/19 Chuck Taylor, TKO, 6
(Retains World Welterweight Title)

1948
3/4 Ossie Harris, UDW, 10
3/16 Henry Brimm, UDW, 10
6/28 Bernard Docusen, UDW, 15
(Retains World Welterweight Title)
9/23 Kid Gavilan, UDW, 10
11/15 Bobby Lee, UDW, 10

1949
2/10 Gene Buffalo, KO, 1
2/15 Henry Brimm, WBP, 10
3/25 Bobby Lee, UDW, 10
4/11 Don Lee, UDW, 10
4/20 Earl Turner, TKO, 8
5/16 Al Tribuani, Exhibition Match (=EM), 4
6/7 Freddie Flores, TKO, 3
6/20 Cecil Hudson, KO, 5
7/11 Kid Gavilan, UDW, 15
(Retains World Welterweight Title)
8/24 Steve Belloise, TKO, 7
9/2 Al Mobley, EM, 4
9/9 Benny Evans, TKO, 5
9/12 Charley Dotson, KO, 3
11/9 Don Lee, UDW, 10
11/13 Vern Lester, KO, 5
11/15 Gene Burton, EM, 6
11/16 Gene Burton, EM, 6


1950
1/30 George LaRover, TKO 4
2/13 Al Mobley, TKO, 6
2/22 Aaron Wade, KO, 3
2/27 Jean Walzack, UDW, 10
3/22 George Costner, KO, 1
4/21 Cliff Beckett, TKO, 3
4/28 Ray Barnes, UDW, 10
6/5 Robert Villemain, UDW, 15
(Wins Pennsylvania Middleweight Title)
8/9 Charley Fusari, WBP, 15
(Retains World Welterweight Title)
8/25 Jose Basora, KO, 1
(Retains Pennsylvania Middleweight Title)
9/4 Billy Brown, UDW, 10
10/16 Joe Rindone, TKO, 6
10/26 Carl "Bobo" Olson, KO, 12
(Retains Pennsylvania Middleweight Title)
11/8 Bobby Dykes, MDW, 10
11/27 Jean Stock, TKO, 2
12/9 Luc Van Dam, KO, 4
12/16 Jean Walzack, UDW, 10
12/22 Robert Villemain, TKO, 9
12/25 Hans Stretz, TKO, 5

1951
2/14 Jake LaMotta, TKO, 13
(Wins World Middleweight Title)
(Vacates World Welterweight Title)
4/5 Holly Mims, UDW, 10
4/9 Don Ellis, KO, 1
5/21 Kid Marcel, TKO, 5
5/26 Jean Wanes, UDW, 10
6/10 Jan deBruin, TKO, 8
6/16 Jean Walzack, TKO, 6

If you're not impressed by the fact that Sugar Ray Robinson went undefeated for such a length of time, then consider the amount of fights/rounds that he fought in a period of approximately 100 months: 91 fights, 640 rounds. In the world of contemporary boxing, fighters of Robinson's caliber rarely box more than 3 12-15 round matches a year (that comes out to, at best, 36-45 round a year); during this streak, Robinson averaged about 76 rounds a year.

To the best of my knowledge, no athlete in recorded history has accomplished so much while sacrificing so little. Despite fighting 91 times during this period, Robinson came out virtually unscathed. Any other fighter that could rival Robinson's achievements wouldn't be able to say so because they'd probably be afflicted with Parkinson's (a certain someone does come to mind, but his 61 professional bouts look absolutely trivial in comparison to Robinson's 200).

I've analyzed the numbers and provided you with a detailed account of Robinson's streak. In doing so, I'm letting Robinson's streak speak for itself because there's not much else one once can do besides stare at the computer screen in amazement. Nothing in the world of American sports comes close to Robinson's streak, and, if I knew much about them, I'd probably be able to say with confidence that nothing in European/Latin American/Asian/African/Oceanic/Middle Eastern/Canadian sports comes close to it either.

 

[Big Sexy]

Opening​

There have been many impressive winning streaks in the history of sports on both the collegiate and professional levels. The most impressive of these streaks is the 33 game winning streak by the LA Lakers during the 1971-72 NBA season. The streak to this day is the longest winning streak in the history of major American professional team sports and team sport streaks are more impressive then individual ones.

The Streak​

They won 33 games in a row. Think about that. In the NBA you play an 82 game schedule and are usually playing 3-4 games every week. It's very easy to slip up and lose a game, but the Lakers were able to go for two months without losing one. They weren’t exactly playing bottom feeders every night either. 19 of the 33 games they won during the streak were against teams that either made the playoffs or had a winning record at the end of the season. There were 17 teams in the NBA at this time, including the Lakers. LA faced and defeated all of them at least once during the streak with the exception of the Cincinnati Royals who finished the season 30-52 and missed the playoffs. The team that ended the streak was the defending NBA Champion Milwaukee Bucks who were led by Oscar Robertson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Even though the Bucks ended the streak they were also one of the many victims during the streak as the Lakers had beaten them for win number 11 in a row.

Competition Level​

You can talk all you want about the competitiveness of the NBA when the Lakers had their streak but the league at that point was very competitive. From the 1958-59 season to the 1968-69 season, only two teams won the NBA title. The Celtics won it 10 times and the 76ers won it once. However, for the next 10 seasons from 1969-70 to 1978-79 there were 8 different teams that won the title. Parody in the league was alive and well during the Lakers streak.

Streak in Perspective​

I’d also like to put even more in perspective how impressive the Lakers streak was. During the Celtics run of dominance in the NBA throughout the 50’s and 60’s, the longest winning streak they put together was just 17 games. That’s barely half of what the Lakers streak was.

Comparison to Other Pro Team Winning Streaks​

Only 3 other NBA teams have even been able to reach at least 20 straight wins and the second longest streak is still 11 games behind at 22 and that was done a few years ago by the Rockets. Looking at the other 3 major professional team sports you have a 17 game winning streak by the Penguins in the NHL in 1993. In the NFL the Patriots had a 21 game winning streak combining regular season and playoffs from 2003-2004 and the Colts had a 23 game regular season winning streak from 2008-2009. In MLB the New York Giants have the longest win streak at 26 games and that happened all the way back in 1916 and included a tie. The longest MLB win streak without a tie is 21 games by the Cubs in 1935. As you can see, with the exception of the 1916 Giants in MLB, all of these streaks are at least 10 games short of what he Lakers did.

Comparison to Other College Team Winning Streaks​

Another argument I know will come up is “what about UCLA and UConn in men’s and women’s college basketball?” Those streaks are impressive no doubt but the parody just wasn’t there during UCLA’s streak and isn’t there now with UConn’s streak that just ended. UCLA was THE dominant team in college basketball for a good 12 year period at the end of John Wooden’s run there. They had the best coach in the country and got all of the top recruits. UConn is in a very similar position now in Women’s college basketball. There just aren’t many teams out there that can compete with them, let alone beat them when they’re at their best. It isn’t a coincidence that both UCLA and UConn’s streaks ended with a loss to the same teams that had beaten them last before their respective streaks started.

 

[Big Sexy]

No streak in sports is greater than boxer Sugar Ray Robinson's 91 consecutive win streak from 19 February 1943 to 16 June 1951:

I'd like to point out that officially Robinson's streak of 91 fights was an unbeaten streak, not a winning streak. He had two draws in those 91 fights. Boxrec.com shows he had draws to Jose Barosa in 1945 and Henry Brimm in 1949. The longest winning streak belongs to Julio Caesar Chavez at 87 straight wins. Even if we were going with unbeaten streaks in boxing there are two boxers with longer unbeaten streaks. Pedro Carrasco at 93 straight and Jimmy Wilde at 103 straight.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I'd like to point out that officially Robinson's streak of 91 fights was an unbeaten streak, not a winning streak. He had two draws in those 91 fights. Boxrec.com shows he had draws to Jose Barosa in 1945 and Henry Brimm in 1949. The longest winning streak belongs to Julio Caesar Chavez at 87 straight wins. Even if we were going with unbeaten streaks in boxing there are two boxers with longer unbeaten streaks. Pedro Carrasco at 93 straight and Jimmy Wilde at 103 straight.

Firstly, Sugar Ray Robinson's streak can correctly be classified as either an undefeated or a consecutive win streak. The fine print at boxrec.com shows that, in the two draws he had during this streak, he had the majority of points. Also, Sports Illustrated regards it as a consecutive-win streak.

Secondly, this is about the most-impressive streak, not the streak that lasted longer. Pedro Carrasco was a European boxer who never fought an International Boxing Hall of Fame (IBHF) boxer during his streak and who only sniffed meaningful gold once in his life (the WBC Lightweight title, which he captured through a DQ victory) before losing it immediately after in his next match. As for the other two boxers, cross-referencing Chavez's streak opponents with the list of IBHF inductees shows that he only faced one inductee during this streak (Jimmy Wilde's in the IBHF, but there doesn't seem to be any information on his opponents in there). On the other hand, during his 91 consecutive-win streak, Robinson faced other IBHF inductees 9 times (Jake LaMotta four times, Henry Armstrong once, Sammy Angott once, Kid Gavilan twice, and Bobo Olson once). In terms of quality, the streaks of the other fighters you mentioned have nothing on Robinson's streak, hence why it's more impressive.

All right, I'm packing it in for the night. I'll respond to your argument properly later on today.

 

[The People's Peep]

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 Suck Ass]

For me, the most impressive streak in sports would be Brett Favre's 297 games started streak. Let's look at some stats.

During his streak, 410 different quarterbacks started at least one game in the NFL. The Bears started 21 different quarterbacks alone during Favre's streak. That is a testament to the willpower and endurance that this man has. The fact that he played one game in 2003 after the sudden death of his father and again the next year after his wife, Deanna, was diagnosed with breast cancer shows that he doesn't let anything tear him away from the game. Some might say that he's putting his job before family, and that is a valid point. But Brett said that his father would have wanted him to play, and his wife probably knew how much Brett loved football and how much football meant to him.

Onto the real stats. During his streak, he went 186-111. That is a better record than a number of head coaches around the league. He threw for 71838 yards, and threw 508 touchdown passes. He also threw 336 interceptions, but that's just from playing in so many games.

The reason this streak is better is the fact that week in and week out, Brett Favre put his body on the line to help his team win. He played through an enormous amount of injuries, and it finally took a hit to his already injured shoulder to knock him out at age 41.

Now, onto my rebuttals.

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.

To Big Sexy: You put up a good argument, but let's face it: NBA win streaks are not to impressive. Many other teams have put up 10-15 game win streaks in the highly competitive NBA of today. A 33-game win streak may be impressive, but compared to any other win streak, it falls short.

To TPP: I was debating on arguing for the UConn women. I will agree with most of your points, and on the point that the fact that they are women doesn't make much of a difference. I really can't argue against it, so yeah.

 

[Big Sexy]

To Big Sexy: You put up a good argument, but let's face it: NBA win streaks are not to impressive. Many other teams have put up 10-15 game win streaks in the highly competitive NBA of today. A 33-game win streak may be impressive, but compared to any other win streak, it falls short.

1. The topic is most impressive winning streak in sports. Brett Favre's consecutive game streak is not a winning streak, therefore your entire argument is irrelevant.

2. Why are NBA winning streaks not impressive? They are just as impressive as winning streaks in any other sport, college or professional. Many teams may put up 10-15 game winning streaks in today's NBA but that isn't even half of what the Lakers streak was. Compared to other winning streaks the Lakers 33 game winning streak is the best. Like I said in my opening post "it is the longest winning streak in the history of major American professional team sports," and no one has really come close to beating it.

 

[CH David]

For me, the most impressive streak in sports would be Brett Favre's 297 games started streak. Let's look at some stats.

During his streak, 410 different quarterbacks started at least one game in the NFL. The Bears started 21 different quarterbacks alone during Favre's streak. That is a testament to the willpower and endurance that this man has. The fact that he played one game in 2003 after the sudden death of his father and again the next year after his wife, Deanna, was diagnosed with breast cancer shows that he doesn't let anything tear him away from the game. Some might say that he's putting his job before family, and that is a valid point. But Brett said that his father would have wanted him to play, and his wife probably knew how much Brett loved football and how much football meant to him.

Onto the real stats. During his streak, he went 186-111. That is a better record than a number of head coaches around the league. He threw for 71838 yards, and threw 508 touchdown passes. He also threw 336 interceptions, but that's just from playing in so many games.

The reason this streak is better is the fact that week in and week out, Brett Favre put his body on the line to help his team win. He played through an enormous amount of injuries, and it finally took a hit to his already injured shoulder to knock him out at age 41.

Now, onto my rebuttals.

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.

To Big Sexy: You put up a good argument, but let's face it: NBA win streaks are not to impressive. Many other teams have put up 10-15 game win streaks in the highly competitive NBA of today. A 33-game win streak may be impressive, but compared to any other win streak, it falls short.

To TPP: I was debating on arguing for the UConn women. I will agree with most of your points, and on the point that the fact that they are women doesn't make much of a difference. I really can't argue against it, so yeah.

Noah that's all well and good, but please, there was a regular thread about this. This is for winning streaks, not individual streaks. Read for the love of God man!

--------------------------------------------------​

My choice is quite simple. The Oklahoma Sooners' 47 game winning streak from October 10, 1953 - November 16, 1957.

Here is the list of teams they played and the locations of the games.

Spoiler

Oct. 10 Oklahoma 19, Texas 14 Dallas, Texas
Oct. 17 Oklahoma 45, Kansas 0 Norman
Oct. 24 Oklahoma 27, Colorado 20 Norman
Oct. 31 Oklahoma 34, Kansas State 0 Norman
Nov. 7 Oklahoma 14, Missouri 0 Columbia, Mo.
Nov. 14 Oklahoma 47, Iowa State 0 Norman
Nov. 21 Oklahoma 30, Nebraska 7 Lincoln, Neb.
Nov. 28 Oklahoma 42, Oklahoma State 7 Norman
Jan. 1 Oklahoma 7, Maryland 0 Orange Bowl

1954 Season Score Location
Sept. 18 Oklahoma 27, California 13 Berkeley, Calif.
Sept. 25 Oklahoma 21, TCU 16 Norman
Oct. 9 Oklahoma 14, Texas 7 Dallas, Texas
Oct. 16 Oklahoma 65, Kansas 0 Lawrence, Kan.
Oct. 23 Oklahoma 21, Kansas State 0 Norman
Oct. 30 Oklahoma 13, Colorado 6 Boulder, Colo.
Nov. 6 Oklahoma 40, Iowa State 0 Ames, Iowa
Nov. 13 Oklahoma 34, Missouri 13 Norman
Nov. 20 Oklahoma 55, Nebraska 7 Norman
Nov. 27 Oklahoma 14, Oklahoma State 0 Stillwater, Okla.

1955 Season Score Location
Sept. 24 Oklahoma 13, North Carolina 6 Chapel Hill, N.C.
Oct. 1 Oklahoma 26, Pittsburgh 14 Norman
Oct. 8 Oklahoma 20, Texas 0 Dallas, Texas
Oct. 15 Oklahoma 44, Kansas 6 Norman
Oct. 22 Oklahoma 56, Colorado 21 Norman
Oct. 29 Oklahoma 40, Kansas State 7 Manhattan, Kan.
Nov. 5 Oklahoma 20, Missouri 0 Columbia, Mo.
Nov. 12 Oklahoma 52, Iowa State 0 Ames, Iowa
Nov. 19 Oklahoma 41, Nebraska 0 Lincoln, Neb.
Nov. 26 Oklahoma 53, Oklahoma State 0 Norman
Jan. 2 Oklahoma 20, Maryland 6 Orange Bowl

1956 Season Score Location
Sept. 29 Oklahoma 36, North Carolina 0 Norman
Oct. 6 Oklahoma 66, Kansas State 0 Norman
Oct. 13 Oklahoma 45, Texas 0 Dallas, Texas
Oct. 20 Oklahoma 34, Kansas 12 Lawrence, Kan.
Oct. 27 Oklahoma 40, Notre Dame 0 South Bend, Ind.
Nov. 3 Oklahoma 27, Colorado 19 Boulder, Colo.
Nov. 10 Oklahoma 44, Iowa State 0 Ames, Iowa
Nov. 17 Oklahoma 67, Missouri 14 Norman
Nov. 24 Oklahoma 54, Nebraska 6 Norman
Dec. 1 Oklahoma 53, Oklahoma State 0 Stillwater, Okla.

1957 Season Score Location
Sept. 21 Oklahoma 26, Pittsburgh 0 Pittsburgh, Pa.
Oct. 5 Oklahoma 40, Iowa State 14 Norman
Oct. 12 Oklahoma 21, Texas 7 Dallas, Texas
Oct. 19 Oklahoma 47, Kansas 0 Norman
Oct. 26 Oklahoma 14, Colorado 13 Norman
Nov. 2 Oklahoma 13, Kansas State 0 Manhattan, Kan.
Nov. 9 Oklahoma 39, Missouri 14 Columbia, Mo.

We see teams of greatness from year to year. Sometimes a Cinderella like Boise State was in the Fiesta Bowl, coincidentally against the Sooners. However, for three full years and parts of five, the Oklahoma Sooners did what pros couldn't and likely won't do, and what others have tried and failed at. No team has gotten into single digits while trying to rack up the wins since it was accomplished. Toledo was at 35 from '69-'71, USC at 34 from '03-'05, and Miami at 34 from '00-'03. That's still another full season of wins from all of them.

Some perspective on the teams they played. They weren't easy games either in the Big 7 (at the time) or non-conference either way. I know I have the list above but the rankings aren't listed. Look at both if necessary.

Spoiler

1953 Ranked Opponents​

Texas was at #15 to start the #16 Sooner's streak with a 19-14 victory.
Maryland was #1 and the Sooner's beat them in the Orange Bowl 7-0.

1954 Ranked Opponents​

First game of the season vs. #12 Cal. Final score was 27-13.
Second game vs. #20 TCU. Final score was 21-16.
Third was against against again 15th ranked Texas. Final score was 14-7.

First three games against ranked opponents that were all non-conference game.

1955 Ranked Opponents​

#12 Pitt in the second game. Game ended 26-14.
#14 Colorado got torn up 56-21.
A rematch of two years prior vs. Maryland. The Sooners won 20-6.

1956 Ranked Opponents​

None, and they railed through pretty much everyone. Colorado gave them the only semi-close game but lost 27-19.

1957 Ranked Opponents​

#8 Pitt to start the season ended with a 26-0 victory.
The final game of the streak against #19 Missouri was a 39-14 affair.

The streak speaks for itself. Teams can lose on any given day, we saw that with Michigan and Appalachian State a few years ago. Oklahoma spent over 4 seasons undefeated, in parts of 5 years.

-------------------------------------​

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.

I'll get to the others when I get back.

 

[I Suck Ass]

God dammit.......just dammit. Well, then I'll go with Jimmie Johnson's 5 Sprint Cup Championship wins, which is a winning streak, just a championship win streak. For me, this streak is more impressive than any other sports streak. This is 5 straight championships in a highly competitive sport. NASCAR is not easy, despite the heckling and the argument that "It's only driving". Winning 1 championship isn't easy, let alone 5 in a row.

Here are some basic stats from his championship streak from 2006-2010

Average starting position: 9.28
Average finish position: 10.96
DNF: 11
Top 10 Finishes: 94
Top 5 Finishes: 80
Races Won: 35
Poles Won: 17

All of this happened over 180 different races, and he finished more than half of them in the Top 10, and nearly half finishing in the Top 5. That is an amazing feat even without the championship, but adding the championships in there makes it insane. No other racer has ever come close to doing what Johnson has done. Hell, he could still keep it going, seeing as his streak is still active, something that no other mentioned streak has going for it.

Now for more rebuttals, this time with extra re!

To Big Sexy: I'm sorry, but to me, that streak doesn't mean much. And just because it's the longest streak in the Big 4 leagues doesn't give it much. It couldn't happen in hockey, just because hockey is by nature, a sport that doesn't help winning streaks. The longest for hockey is 17 by the Penguins. It couldn't happen in baseball for the same reason. The record for baseball is 26, and it happened in 1916 with the New York Giants. And there is no way in hell that an NFL team could win 33 games in a row, because they would have to go undefeated for 2 straight seasons, and then some.

To CH David: Good post, but the issue I have with it is the ranked opponents. There were only 13 ranked opponents in those 47 games, with 2 Top 10 opponents. (I could be wrong with a miscount). That hurts the streak for me, because that takes away the credibility.

 

[Big Sexy]

Firstly, Sugar Ray Robinson's streak can correctly be classified as either an undefeated or a consecutive win streak. The fine print at boxrec.com shows that, in the two draws he had during this streak, he had the majority of points. Also, Sports Illustrated regards it as a consecutive-win streak

I think for something to be considered the most impressive winning streak of all time everyone should have the same belief about said streak. There are people out there who don't consider Robinson's streak a winning streak. His official record shows that he has 6 draws and of those 6 draws, 2 of them came during his 91 fight unbeaten streak. I'd rather go with a streak where there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it was a winning streak.

Secondly, this is about the most-impressive streak, not the streak that lasted longer.

Exactly. And nothing is more impressive then the Lakers winning 33 straight NBA games. They didn't lose for two whole months in a sport where you are playing 3 to 4 times a week and often traveling coast to coast for games. No other professional team in sports history has had a streak like the Lakers did.

As for the other two boxers, cross-referencing Chavez's streak opponents with the list of IBHF inductees shows that he only faced one inductee during this streak

Chavez is a newer era fighter so there may only be one opponent of his during the streak that is currently in the IBHF Hall of Fame but that doesn't mean a few more couldn't be inducted in the future. Chavez himself didn't even retire until 2005 and just got inducted in the class of 2011 a month ago.

We see teams of greatness from year to year. Sometimes a Cinderella like Boise State was in the Fiesta Bowl, coincidentally against the Sooners. However, for three full years and parts of five, the Oklahoma Sooners did what pros couldn't and likely won't do, and what others have tried and failed at.

1. A team like Boise State back in 1950's college football really had no chance of existing. It was a much different game back then.

2. The college and pro football games are completely different so the comparison there doesn't really mean much. It means even less because we are talking about 1950's college football.

Some perspective on the teams they played. They weren't easy games either in the Big 7 (at the time) or non-conference either way. I know I have the list above but the rankings aren't listed. Look at both if necessary.

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.

The streak speaks for itself. Teams can lose on any given day, we saw that with Michigan and Appalachian State a few years ago. Oklahoma spent over 4 seasons undefeated, in parts of 5 years.

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.

To Big Sexy: I'm sorry, but to me, that streak doesn't mean much.

I couldn't give a fuck less what it means to you. What it means to the sports world and the history of sports is what matters and anyone who follows sports closely, and knows what they are talking about, will tell you that the Lakers 33 game winning streak is easily one of the most impressive ever, and many will tell you that it is THE most impressive ever.

And just because it's the longest streak in the Big 4 leagues doesn't give it much. It couldn't happen in hockey, just because hockey is by nature, a sport that doesn't help winning streaks. The longest for hockey is 17 by the Penguins. It couldn't happen in baseball for the same reason. The record for baseball is 26, and it happened in 1916 with the New York Giants
. And there is no way in hell that an NFL team could win 33 games in a row, because they would have to go undefeated for 2 straight seasons, and then some.

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.

People's Peep, don't think I forgot about you. I already had an entire section in my first post dedicated to the UConn women's and UCLA men's streaks so you can find my thoughts on that streak there.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Opening​

There have been many impressive winning streaks in the history of sports on both the collegiate and professional levels. The most impressive of these streaks is the 33 game winning streak by the LA Lakers during the 1971-72 NBA season. The streak to this day is the longest winning streak in the history of major American professional team sports and team sport streaks are more impressive then individual ones.

You've given absolutely no proof or argument whatsoever that team streaks are better than individual streaks. I'll even counter this claim right here, right now, by saying that individuals streaks are more impressive because, in individual competition, there's no one an athlete can rely on but himself, whether it be in boxing, MMA, running, or cycling. Participants in team sports rarely, if ever, face an end-all, be-all situation; if they have an off-day, one of their teammates can temporarily pick up the slack.

Now, let's get to the rest of your argument.

The Streak​

They won 33 games in a row. Think about that. In the NBA you play an 82 game schedule and are usually playing 3-4 games every week. It's very easy to slip up and lose a game, but the Lakers were able to go for two months without losing one. They weren’t exactly playing bottom feeders every night either. 19 of the 33 games they won during the streak were against teams that either made the playoffs or had a winning record at the end of the season.

15 of their wins came against teams with winning records while 18 of them came against teams with losing records. The NFL's not the only place where losers can end up in the playoffs.

Competition Level​

You can talk all you want about the competitiveness of the NBA when the Lakers had their streak but the league at that point was very competitive. From the 1958-59 season to the 1968-69 season, only two teams won the NBA title. The Celtics won it 10 times and the 76ers won it once. However, for the next 10 seasons from 1969-70 to 1978-79 there were 8 different teams that won the title. Parody in the league was alive and well during the Lakers streak.

Take a look at the NBA Finals over a ten-year period with the 1972 championship series being the last taken into account: from 1963 to 1972, the Lakers went to the finals 7 times. The Celtics went to the finals seven times during this time period as well, four times going up against the Lakers. When only two teams account for 70% of the participation slots for the NBA Finals during a ten-year period, I'd hardly call that a competitive situation.

Streak in Perspective​

I’d also like to put even more in perspective how impressive the Lakers streak was. During the Celtics run of dominance in the NBA throughout the 50’s and 60’s, the longest winning streak they put together was just 17 games. That’s barely half of what the Lakers streak was.

The closest any other NBA team has come to the Lakers were the Rockets of the '07-'08 season. Percentage-wise, they played the same proportion of losing teams during this streak as the Lakers did during their 33-win streak.

You could argue that this would make their streaks even in terms of impressiveness, but this doesn't take into account how much more competitive the NBA has become since the 1970s with franchise expansion and greater utilization of non-American talent.

Comparison to Other Pro Team Winning Streaks​

Only 3 other NBA teams have even been able to reach at least 20 straight wins and the second longest streak is still 11 games behind at 22 and that was done a few years ago by the Rockets. Looking at the other 3 major professional team sports you have a 17 game winning streak by the Penguins in the NHL in 1993. In the NFL the Patriots had a 21 game winning streak combining regular season and playoffs from 2003-2004 and the Colts had a 23 game regular season winning streak from 2008-2009. In MLB the New York Giants have the longest win streak at 26 games and that happened all the way back in 1916 and included a tie. The longest MLB win streak without a tie is 21 games by the Cubs in 1935. As you can see, with the exception of the 1916 Giants in MLB, all of these streaks are at least 10 games short of what he Lakers did.

I'm not sure about the MLB, but the NBA incidence of injury is laughable in comparison to that in the NFL and NHL. Given the substantially greater amount of risk faced in the NFL and NHL, any streaks considered within these leagues should be given a premium. Thus, comparing the Lakers streak to any streak in the NFL or NHL is neither apt nor fair.

Comparison to Other College Team Winning Streaks​

Another argument I know will come up is “what about UCLA and UConn in men’s and women’s college basketball?” Those streaks are impressive no doubt but the parody just wasn’t there during UCLA’s streak and isn’t there now with UConn’s streak that just ended. UCLA was THE dominant team in college basketball for a good 12 year period at the end of John Wooden’s run there. They had the best coach in the country and got all of the top recruits. UConn is in a very similar position now in Women’s college basketball. There just aren’t many teams out there that can compete with them, let alone beat them when they’re at their best. It isn’t a coincidence that both UCLA and UConn’s streaks ended with a loss to the same teams that had beaten them last before their respective streaks started.

Everything here you're saying about UCLA Men's Basketball and UConn's Women's Basketball could also be said about the Lakers team you're defending. They WERE a dominant team up until and through the 1971-1972 season. Furthermore, the '71-'72 Lakers had three future Hall of Fame starters (Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich); the Lakers were hardly hurting for talent when they made their run.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I think for something to be considered the most impressive winning streak of all time everyone should have the same belief about said streak. There are people out there who don't consider Robinson's streak a winning streak. His official record shows that he has 6 draws and of those 6 draws, 2 of them came during his 91 fight unbeaten streak. I'd rather go with a streak where there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it was a winning streak.

Fair enough. However, I'm going to go with the professionals at Sports Illustrated who live and breathe sports journalism; I think their credibility and reputation are going to outweigh those of anyone who claims themselves to be an authority on boxing history with no experience save for Internet/blog journalism.

Exactly. And nothing is more impressive then the Lakers winning 33 straight NBA games. They didn't lose for two whole months in a sport where you are playing 3 to 4 times a week and often traveling coast to coast for games. No other professional team in sports history has had a streak like the Lakers did.

And this is why I decided to defend Sugar Ray Robinson's win streak instead of that of any other boxer. Other streaks may match the quantity of Robinson's, but none match its quality.

Chavez is a newer era fighter so there may only be one opponent of his during the streak that is currently in the IBHF Hall of Fame but that doesn't mean a few more couldn't be inducted in the future. Chavez himself didn't even retire until 2005 and just got inducted in the class of 2011 a month ago.

Save for Hector Camacho, I'd say it does. The vast majority of Chavez's opponents are retired and eligible for the IBHF. In fact, the man that he went to his first draw with, Pernell Whitaker, was inducted a few years before he was. Once Camacho retires (or becomes eligible for the IBHF), I think that's the only person from Chavez's list of streak opponents that has a shot at being inducted.

 

[Big Sexy]

You've given absolutely no proof or argument whatsoever that team streaks are better than individual streaks. I'll even counter this claim right here, right now, by saying that individuals streaks are more impressive because, in individual competition, there's no one an athlete can rely on but himself, whether it be in boxing, MMA, running, or cycling. Participants in team sports rarely, if ever, face an end-all, be-all situation; if they have an off-day, one of their teammates can temporarily pick up the slack.

When it comes to team streaks it takes a collective effort. One player doesn't win in the NBA or any team sport as evidence by the Jordan led Bulls before Pippen got there and the LeBron led Cavaliers. Also guys like Ovechkin with the Capitals and Peyton Manning didn't get a title until he got a defense. With individual streaks the only person you rely on is yourself like you said. If you are the best at what you do then you are expected to go out on a nightly basis and always win. Teammates can let each other down because it takes a team effort to win in team sports. Individuals don't have that problem.

15 of their wins came against teams with winning records while 18 of them came against teams with losing records. The NFL's not the only place where losers can end up in the playoffs.

No it isn't but you're still showing that nearly half of their streak came against teams that had winning records. Obviously you aren't going to be able to face teams with a winning record every night but that still doesn't take away from impressiveness of the streak. They went 2 months without losing and about every other game they were doing it against teams with winning records. I'll repeat again, no other pro team has EVER done what they did.

Take a look at the NBA Finals over a ten-year period with the 1972 championship series being the last taken into account: from 1963 to 1972, the Lakers went to the finals 7 times. The Celtics went to the finals seven times during this time period as well, four times going up against the Lakers. When only two teams account for 70% of the participation slots for the NBA Finals during a ten-year period, I'd hardly call that a competitive situation.

The streak didn't even take place until 71-72. If this happened in the 60's I may be more inclined to agree with you but by the 70's there was far more parody then there ever had been and I showed that with the ten year period where 8 different teams won the NBA title. The Lakers streak was a few years into that period.

The closest any other NBA team has come to the Lakers were the Rockets of the '07-'08 season. Percentage-wise, they played the same proportion of losing teams during this streak as the Lakers did during their 33-win streak.

And still fell a full 11 games. 22 is a big number but the fact that they were still double digit wins away from breaking the streak is remarkable. The Rockets were also only the second team to even break the 20 win mark.

I'm not sure about the MLB, but the NBA incidence of injury is laughable in comparison to that in the NFL and NHL. Given the substantially greater amount of risk faced in the NFL and NHL, any streaks considered within these leagues should be given a premium. Thus, comparing the Lakers streak to any streak in the NFL or NHL is neither apt nor fair.

The NHL plays the same schedule as the NBA and injuries happen on just as consistent of a basis. Especially in the old NBA basketball is a much more physically demanding sport then most people give it credit for. The NFL is a lot more physical yes, but with a 16 game schedule they also don't have to finish the streak all in just one season.

Everything here you're saying about UCLA Men's Basketball and UConn's Women's Basketball could also be said about the Lakers team you're defending. They WERE a dominant team up until and through the 1971-1972 season. Furthermore, the '71-'72 Lakers had three future Hall of Fame starters (Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, and Gail Goodrich); the Lakers were hardly hurting for talent when they made their run.

Up until the 71-72 season the Lakers hadn't won a title since the early 50's when they were still in Minneapolis so well they were a great team I can't consider a team that hadn't won the title dominant. They also may have had 3 HOFers but Chamberlain at the time was 35 years old and his numbers showed that he was certainly on the down side of his career. Jerry West was 33 years old at the time though he still put up great numbers.

Let's also look at their competition. The Knicks had 6 HOFers, the Bucks had 2, the C's were still a great team led by HOFer Dave Cowens, GS had one HOFer and they also had a great player in Cazzie Russell. One of the losing teams you mentioned that made the playoffs was the ATL Hawks who had two HOFers in Pete maravich and Walt Bellamy. The other losing team that made the playoffs was baltimore and they were led by HOFer Wes Unsled. With only 17 teams in the league talent couldn't be spread around as much and teams like the 50's and 60's Celtics were no longer in existence. Parody was alive and well in the NBA.

 

[Big Sexy]

Fair enough. However, I'm going to go with the professionals at Sports Illustrated who live and breathe sports journalism; I think their credibility and reputation are going to outweigh those of anyone who claims themselves to be an authority on boxing history with no experience save for Internet/blog journalism.

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.

And this is why I decided to defend Sugar Ray Robinson's win streak instead of that of any other boxer. Other streaks may match the quantity of Robinson's, but none match its quality.

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.

Save for Hector Camacho, I'd say it does. The vast majority of Chavez's opponents are retired and eligible for the IBHF. In fact, the man that he went to his first draw with, Pernell Whitaker, was inducted a few years before he was. Once Camacho retires (or becomes eligible for the IBHF), I think that's the only person from Chavez's list of streak opponents that has a shot at being inducted.

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

 

[The People's Peep]

Another argument I know will come up is “what about UCLA and UConn in men’s and women’s college basketball?” Those streaks are impressive no doubt but the parody just wasn’t there during UCLA’s streak and isn’t there now with UConn’s streak that just ended. UCLA was THE dominant team in college basketball for a good 12 year period at the end of John Wooden’s run there. They had the best coach in the country and got all of the top recruits. UConn is in a very similar position now in Women’s college basketball. There just aren’t many teams out there that can compete with them, let alone beat them when they’re at their best. It isn’t a coincidence that both UCLA and UConn’s streaks ended with a loss to the same teams that had beaten them last before their respective streaks started.

Yeah, the parody in Women's basketball isnt the same as it was in the NBA nor is it close to levels today. But when you look at Women's basketball by itself, the parody is still the best its ever been for that sport. The sport hasnt had the same amount of time to develop as other sports had. That makes it hard, and almost unfair to compare the two.

Also, whats wrong with dominating? I think that makes the streak that more impressive. When you look unstoppable for over two years, thats incredible. I think a streak of dominating opponents is better than one where you're pulling out last second wins and just barely getting the W.

One more thing to think about when comparing the UConn and Lakers streak. The Lakers streak was during one year. The same 5 starters every game, barring injury of course. The UConn streak was over several years, where players left and new ones came in, changing the dynamic of the team, and they still won.

To Tdigs: I dont know much about boxing. I actually kind of hate the sport. But even when I, a guy who watches sports just about 24/7, looked at the list of guys he faced, I only recognized one name. Other than that, there isnt much I can say about your choice.

I'll try and get to the others later.

 

[BooCocky]

I know this isn't going to the popular choice but Carl Hubbel of the New York Giants. He won 24 consecutive decisions, which I believe is the longest ever in baseball for a pitcher. The Streak started July 17th 1936 and it ended May 30th, 1937.

There really isn't even much to write but he dominated the league. Winning 2 starts in a row is tough, this pitcher won 24. It's pretty much a team accomplishment too. The team had to produce and Hubbel had to do his job. The streak is impressive he won 16 consecutive starts in 1936 and his first 8 in 1937. He had no bad games which is impressive. This streak has never been touched and I don't believe it's going to with how the game progresses as the years go by with the extra pitchers like relievers and set up guys. Hubbels work was the work of a genius. His winning streak is impressive because it only takes one bad pitch to turn a game around.

There have been some impressive winning streaks like the Uconn women, UCLA men, even the consecutive game win streak by the Oklahoma Sooners. But those accomplishments are solely team accomplishments, not individual ones like Hubbels pretty much was...

 

[I Suck Ass]

Jeffue, the one big flaw in your streak is that it is broken up by 2 years. If it had happened in one year, I would be a lot more impressive. But winning 16 in a row one year, and 8 in a row another year is not as impressive as 24 in a row in one year. Plus, he did it in the 1930's, a time where you could still cheat and get away with it in baseball. Who's to say he didn't throw a spitball or 2? Add in the fact that baseball was not a high scoring game back in, and this streak's credibility dissolves.

 

[Big Sexy]

Yeah, the parody in Women's basketball isnt the same as it was in the NBA nor is it close to levels today. But when you look at Women's basketball by itself, the parody is still the best its ever been for that sport. The sport hasnt had the same amount of time to develop as other sports had. That makes it hard, and almost unfair to compare the two.

I'll agree there may be more parody then there used to be, but the parody still is not good enough for me to consider their streak the most impressive ever.

Also, whats wrong with dominating? I think that makes the streak that more impressive. When you look unstoppable for over two years, thats incredible. I think a streak of dominating opponents is better than one where you're pulling out last second wins and just barely getting the W.

There's nothing wrong with dominating but part of the reason they were dominating is because of the caliber of players they have compared to everyone else. UConn more often then not is getting multiple of the top recruits in the country every year, especially recently. I'll take the Lakers winning some close NBA games over UConn blowing some teams out in women's college basketball any day.

One more thing to think about when comparing the UConn and Lakers streak. The Lakers streak was during one year. The same 5 starters every game, barring injury of course. The UConn streak was over several years, where players left and new ones came in, changing the dynamic of the team, and they still won.

The UConn streak was mainly over two seasons and then 12 games to start this year and obviously the streak ended this year. In the two full undefeated seasons UConn had almost the exact same roster. They only lost 3 seniors from the 2008-2009 team to the 2009-2010 team and of those 3 seniors, only one of them played major minutes. The other two were end of the bench reserves who averaged 7.4 and 3.8 minutes per game respectively. Renee Montgomery was the one good senior they lost and they had two players that helped replace her. Caroline Doty was a returning sophomore who had only played in 17 games as a freshmen due to injury. They also had a top recruit in freshmen Kelly Faris who played some key reserve minutes. The two teams that had 78 of the 90 wins were virtually one in the same.

 

[BooCocky]

Jeffue, the one big flaw in your streak is that it is broken up by 2 years. If it had happened in one year, I would be a lot more impressive. But winning 16 in a row one year, and 8 in a row another year is not as impressive as 24 in a row in one year. Plus, he did it in the 1930's, a time where you could still cheat and get away with it in baseball. Who's to say he didn't throw a spitball or 2? Add in the fact that baseball was not a high scoring game back in, and this streak's credibility dissolves.

Who cares? That's still 24 consecutive wins. He did it in 27 starts, had 3 no decisions. Which is still impressive. He was able to have the longevity over a year, he didn't let the streak get to him on his time off and what not and he stilled pitched exceptionally well. And your cheating thing is ridiculous. People are always going to cheat in sports. Some just don't happen to get caught. Some forms of cheating are not that big of a deal and throwing an illegal pitch isn't that big of a deal. It's like taking away the 56 game hit streak from Joe Dimaggio because he could have been taking steroids. That's just absurd. It was a consecutive win streak that will not be touched for quite some time. There are no holes in the streak. UCLA won 88 games over a certain time period, but lets not count that because they didn't do it in one year? Yeah that's what I thought, it doesn't work that way big guy...

 

[CH David]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Big Sexy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

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.

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.

 

[CH David]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spoiler

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

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.

 

[Big Sexy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.