Records That Will Never Be Broken

Off Topic
61

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get it. I admit it, whatever vague point you’re trying to make just went right the fuck over my head.[/quote]

Nothing vague. Then-owner DeBartolo was eventually indicted for some crimes surrounding his riverboat gambling interests or something similar. Maybe it never actually reached indictment but fairly certain his legal issues forced him to relinquish his ownership of the team.

(just going off memory of what generally went down because again, I can’t be bothered to dig up specifics)
[/quote]

He was convicted of failing to report a felony, which apparently is a felony in and of itself. The Louisiana governor solicited a bribe from him (one of many, many people he was trying to get bribes from) in exchange for a riverboat gambling license that Eddie D. was applying for. Eddie D., to my knowledge, did not actually bribe him but didn’t report said bribery solicitation either, which was his only crime.

I fail to see how that represents any sort of link to organized crime, nor do I see how that had anything to do with the streak I mentioned or any of the overall success that the 49ers enjoyed for an unprecedented string of years.

To the best of my knowledge, which I can assure you is FAR superior to yours regarding this matter, Eddie Debartolo, Jr. has never been connected to anything related to the Mafia. His father had been tenuously linked to Santos Trafficante in the past but nothing has ever come about from that. No official FBI investigations resulting in indictments, no arrests, no testimonies against any organized crime figure, nothing.

Those tenuous links have never been extended to his son who owned the 49ers, Eddie Debartolo, Jr., nor have they ever been even remotely linked to the 49ers in any way, shape or form.

Since you can’t be bothered to dig up specifics, why don’t you just shut the fuck up about things that you know nothing about? You wouldn’t look like such an ill-informed asshole that way.

62

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get it. I admit it, whatever vague point you’re trying to make just went right the fuck over my head.[/quote]

Nothing vague. Then-owner DeBartolo was eventually indicted for some crimes surrounding his riverboat gambling interests or something similar. Maybe it never actually reached indictment but fairly certain his legal issues forced him to relinquish his ownership of the team.

(just going off memory of what generally went down because again, I can’t be bothered to dig up specifics)
[/quote]

He was convicted of failing to report a felony, which apparently is a felony in and of itself. The Louisiana governor solicited a bribe from him (one of many, many people he was trying to get bribes from) in exchange for a riverboat gambling license that Eddie D. was applying for. Eddie D., to my knowledge, did not actually bribe him but didn’t report said bribery solicitation either, which was his only crime.

I fail to see how that represents any sort of link to organized crime, nor do I see how that had anything to do with the streak I mentioned or any of the overall success that the 49ers enjoyed for an unprecedented string of years.

To the best of my knowledge, which I can assure you is FAR superior to yours regarding this matter, Eddie Debartolo, Jr. has never been connected to anything related to the Mafia. His father had been tenuously linked to Santos Trafficante in the past but nothing has ever come about from that. No official FBI investigations resulting in indictments, no arrests, no testimonies against any organized crime figure, nothing.

Those tenuous links have never been extended to his son who owned the 49ers, Eddie Debartolo, Jr., nor have they ever been even remotely linked to the 49ers in any way, shape or form.

Since you can’t be bothered to dig up specifics, why don’t you just shut the fuck up about things that you know nothing about? You wouldn’t look like such an ill-informed asshole that way.[/quote]

Heh well played, DBC.

I won’t apologize for a complete/total lack of investigative interest on SF ownership or Pats’ consecutive losses. Besides, its not like people ever remember much more than sensationalized media headlines anyway, so might as well blame the SF Chron for their formative role re: my scant recollections.

As to your last point, thanks for clearing up that ill-informed part. And with this being the internet, I’m sure I can live with the rest.

(edited)

63

Probability and mathematics dictates any sports record has a chance to be broken, assuming exogenous institutional elements remain the same or insignificantly variant. For example, official game rules such as all evolved policies on NFL player safety (and also protecting the passer).

A point of debate could be made around if only institutional exogenous factors determine the “breakability” of a record, other environmental factors like quality of talent could determine whether we see another John Stockton, to relate back to Gregon’s original post. Another possible factor is the natural progression of the sport and its components. In basketball, the point guard position seems to have transformed from a strict position of distributing the basketball to one that is more scoring dominant.

Such came about “naturally” with the evolution of modern basketball players you see battling it out in high school gymnasiums, college arenas and the NBA hard-court. Hence, it is unlikely John Stockton’s assist record will be broken, simply because the environment doesn’t produce John Stockton’s anymore, or atleast doesn’t nurture them in the same manner as in the past.

However, a counter-argument to the above and in support of “any sports record can be broken” uses the same evolution logic outlined before. The spin is cyclicality, that is, if basketball point guards have become more scoring dominant, isn’t there some kind of probability the trend will reverse back to a position that is distributor-focal. An argument to this is, aren’t players just going to continue to become more athletic, based on the ever increasing sample pool of athletes through time (John Stocktons will get over-run by Russell Westbrooks). Yet, a large athlete pool sample also increases the chance of another John Stockton.

The same logic can be applied to any individual sporting record or team record.

64

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Probability and mathematics dictates any sports record has a chance to be broken, assuming exogenous institutional elements remain the same or insignificantly variant. For example, official game rules such as all evolved policies on NFL player safety (and also protecting the passer).

A point of debate could be made around if only institutional exogenous factors determine the “breakability” of a record, other environmental factors like quality of talent could determine whether we see another John Stockton, to relate back to Gregon’s original post. Another possible factor is the natural progression of the sport and its components. In basketball, the point guard position seems to have transformed from a strict position of distributing the basketball to one that is more scoring dominant.

Such came about “naturally” with the evolution of modern basketball players you see battling it out in high school gymnasiums, college arenas and the NBA hard-court. Hence, it is unlikely John Stockton’s assist record will be broken, simply because the environment doesn’t produce John Stockton’s anymore, or atleast doesn’t nurture them in the same manner as in the past.

However, a counter-argument to the above and in support of “any sports record can be broken” uses the same evolution logic outlined before. The spin is cyclicality, that is, if basketball point guards have become more scoring dominant, isn’t there some kind of probability the trend will reverse back to a position that is distributor-focal. An argument to this is, aren’t players just going to continue to become more athletic, based on the ever increasing sample pool of athletes through time (John Stocktons will get over-run by Russell Westbrooks). Yet, a large athlete pool sample also increases the chance of another John Stockton.

The same logic can be applied to any individual sporting record or team record.
[/quote]

TLDNR. And coming from me, that’s really saying something.

65

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Probability and mathematics dictates any sports record has a chance to be broken, assuming exogenous institutional elements remain the same or insignificantly variant.
[/quote]

This statement is false. The probability measure you choose to apply to a practical situation is not dictated by probability theory.

66

You lost me at “probability and mathematics.”

67

Clinton’s oval office slay record.

68

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
Clinton’s oval office slay record. [/quote]

Does he have even have the record?

69

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
Clinton’s oval office slay record. [/quote]

Does he have even have the record?[/quote]

Kennedy was probably giving it to Marilyn Monroe all over that office.

70

[quote]Anonymity wrote:
Brett Favre amassed 297 consecutive regular season starts.

Eli Manning is the next closest player with 135. He would have to play 10 seasons + 2 games straight to tie that.

Even with new rules about QB protection, I still don’t see any way someone can break that barring some miracle breakthrough in injury prevention/treatment or a radical shift in the way the game is played(which is seeming more and more probable).[/quote]

I am surprised no one else has mentioned this record.

71

[quote]TheJonty wrote:
Naim Suleymanoglu is the only olympic lifter to ever have a 500 sinclair total. For those who don’t know, the sinclair total is a means of comparing lifters from different weight classes (similar to the wilks for powerlifting), and is meant to represent what a lifter would lift if they were a superheavyweight of comparable skill.

Back in '88 Naim totalled 342.5kg in the 60kg weight class with a 152.5kg snatch and a 190kg clean and jerk, giving him a 507 sinclair using the current coefficients.

While comments have been made in this thread about how athletes get better over time and performance based records in individual sports are thus likely to get broken at some point, I think the advancements in drug testing and the direct and significant effect of banned substances on weightlifting performance means Naim’s sinclair total is likely to stand for a long, long time, if not indefinitely.

As reference, for someone in my weight class (105kg) to get a 500 sinclair total, they would have to total roughly 458, which is 22kg over the current world record total.[/quote]

Bodyweight and huge lifts like those are impressive, but the fact remains that strength is not linear when measured across body weight.

72

[quote]JSMaxwell wrote:
Cael Sanderson. College wrestling. Undefeated all 4 years. A record of 159-0.[/quote]

JS,

What would be the criteria for breaking this record?

160-0, 4 years undefeated?

What if somebody goes 140-0, 4 years undefeated but never redshirts like Sanderson did his true freshman year. Sanderson lost at least one match that year to a non all american in Iowa’s Paul Jenn. If Bobby Douglas had pulled his red shirt that year there are doubts that he would of ever won 4. One thing is for certain is that he would not have been undefeated.

thanks
Mike

73

Many good references here. Honestly, I’m not so sure that any will NEVER be broken, it may take a long time, but any one of these could possibly be broken 20, 50, 100 years down the road (if the sport lasts long enough). You never know when another Pele or Jordan will come around in some future generation and completely blow everyone’s minds with how good they are at their given sport.

Also, anyone who thinks Phelps winning 8 medals in one olympics (or 20 whatever total, which I believe is also a record) isn’t one of the most impressive feats in sports obviously knows dick about swimming. Once you get to a certain level, the ability to dominate in multiple strokes/events is damn-near impossible. Swimmers tend to start to specialize in one stroke and the attention/dedication to that one stroke or even one event is what gets them to whatever high level they achieve. Being able to dominate (for a decade, no less, over 3 different olympic games) in multiple strokes like he did is insane. He even pulled a MJ and left the sport (except he left to party and smoke weed and enjoy himself, not to play another sport and stay in shape like Jordan did) and came back because they talked him into it just so he could win several more medals and continue dominating (although not to the extent that he had before).

This would be like someone coming into the NFL and being a top 3 player at RB, WR, Safety, etc. On the surface, to a layman, they’re doing mainly the same things. Running, cutting, dodging, catching, hitting in one way or the other. But at a high level, with the attention to detail that they pay, they’re completely different positions that do completely different things. And doing it for an extended amount of time, then leaving for a year or 2 and coming back just to continue pretty much where he left off. Who else has done anything comparable to this? If you can think of anyone, I guarantee the list is extremely short.

74

[quote]TDub301 wrote:
Many good references here. Honestly, I’m not so sure that any will NEVER be broken, it may take a long time, but any one of these could possibly be broken 20, 50, 100 years down the road (if the sport lasts long enough). You never know when another Pele or Jordan will come around in some future generation and completely blow everyone’s minds with how good they are at their given sport.

Also, anyone who thinks Phelps winning 8 medals in one olympics (or 20 whatever total, which I believe is also a record) isn’t one of the most impressive feats in sports obviously knows dick about swimming. Once you get to a certain level, the ability to dominate in multiple strokes/events is damn-near impossible. Swimmers tend to start to specialize in one stroke and the attention/dedication to that one stroke or even one event is what gets them to whatever high level they achieve. Being able to dominate (for a decade, no less, over 3 different olympic games) in multiple strokes like he did is insane. He even pulled a MJ and left the sport (except he left to party and smoke weed and enjoy himself, not to play another sport and stay in shape like Jordan did) and came back because they talked him into it just so he could win several more medals and continue dominating (although not to the extent that he had before).

This would be like someone coming into the NFL and being a top 3 player at RB, WR, Safety, etc. On the surface, to a layman, they’re doing mainly the same things. Running, cutting, dodging, catching, hitting in one way or the other. But at a high level, with the attention to detail that they pay, they’re completely different positions that do completely different things. And doing it for an extended amount of time, then leaving for a year or 2 and coming back just to continue pretty much where he left off. Who else has done anything comparable to this? If you can think of anyone, I guarantee the list is extremely short.[/quote]

It’s not like an RB going to a lineman, if it was such an impossible task (obviously its an amazing feat) why do so many other swimmers medal in multiple strokes/distances when guys in other sports dont’t. I’m not discrediting Phelps its just that swimming seems like the easiest sport to win multiple events in.

75

[quote]Kakarat wrote:
Clinton’s oval office slay record. [/quote]

I’d be willing to bet Kennedy banged more women in one week in the Oval Office than Clinton did in his entire Presidency. The guy was a sex addict who was shuttling hookers in and out of the place every day.

76

Bill Russell’s 11 championship rings in 13 seasons
Totally absurd when you think about it

77

[quote]ukrainian wrote:

[quote]TheJonty wrote:
Naim Suleymanoglu is the only olympic lifter to ever have a 500 sinclair total. For those who don’t know, the sinclair total is a means of comparing lifters from different weight classes (similar to the wilks for powerlifting), and is meant to represent what a lifter would lift if they were a superheavyweight of comparable skill.

Back in '88 Naim totalled 342.5kg in the 60kg weight class with a 152.5kg snatch and a 190kg clean and jerk, giving him a 507 sinclair using the current coefficients.

While comments have been made in this thread about how athletes get better over time and performance based records in individual sports are thus likely to get broken at some point, I think the advancements in drug testing and the direct and significant effect of banned substances on weightlifting performance means Naim’s sinclair total is likely to stand for a long, long time, if not indefinitely.

As reference, for someone in my weight class (105kg) to get a 500 sinclair total, they would have to total roughly 458, which is 22kg over the current world record total.[/quote]

Bodyweight and huge lifts like those are impressive, but the fact remains that strength is not linear when measured across body weight.[/quote]

that’s why the sinclair formula exists?
no one has ever come close to him since

78

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double for the whole year in 1961-62.
[/quote]

Yeah, that’ll never happen again.[/quote]

I’ve wondered about this a bit. I’m not sure about never happening but I think it could happen sooner rather than later. A guy like LBJ averaging 10-15 a game on good FG% and putting a little more emphasis on rebounding and assists and it may happen again.

79

[quote]Teledin wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double for the whole year in 1961-62.
[/quote]

Yeah, that’ll never happen again.[/quote]

I’ve wondered about this a bit. I’m not sure about never happening but I think it could happen sooner rather than later. A guy like LBJ averaging 10-15 a game on good FG% and putting a little more emphasis on rebounding and assists and it may happen again.[/quote]

I don’t know man, Oscar Robertson averaged 30+ points, 12+ boards and 11+ assists a game for an entire season! That’s crazy.

Robertson put up 41 triple doubles that season… Lebron has put up 30 in his entire career.

80

[quote]TBItruck89 wrote:
Bill Russell’s 11 championship rings in 13 seasons
Totally absurd when you think about it[/quote]

With like 8 teams in the entire league at the time, it’s really not that absurd.

[quote]gregron wrote:
I don’t know man, Oscar Robertson averaged 30+ points, 12+ boards and 11+ assists a game for an entire season! That’s crazy.

Robertson put up 41 triple doubles that season… Lebron has put up 30 in his entire career. [/quote]

Yep. If Magic couldn’t average a triple-double, then its prob not possible.

That Jordan put up triple-doubles in like 10 out of 11 games way back when, that was also insane.