Read the debate intro, Sports Geek’s argument, and Loyal Homer’s argument about whether or not Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt is the most dominant athlete in history.
How do you define ‘sports dominance?’
At what point do you stop saying that an athlete ‘had a dominant performance’ and begin simply saying the athlete is dominant? Does quantity take precedence over quality? Is it a question of accumulated accomplishments versus consecutive accomplishments?
Also, does the unique context of each competition dictate a unique set of standards?
Lord Byron Nelson won 11 consecutive PGA tournaments in 1945. More than 60 years later, the closest anyone has ever come to matching that mark is Tiger Woods, who won seven consecutive tournaments in 2006-2007. Is the simple fact that Nelson won those tournaments enough to declare him a dominant golfer? What if he won each of those tournaments by only one stroke, and in playoff situations? Would that be perceived differently than if he had won them all by ten strokes?
In the NFL, running backs Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders both played during the 1990’s. During their respective careers, Smith played for a longer time, rushed for more yards, and scored more touchdowns than Barry Sanders. Does that automatically mean that Smith was the more dominant running back?
In the conversation about Usain Bolt’s relative dominance, both Loyal Homer and Sports Geek raise very valid points. On one hand, as Sports Geek points out, Bolt has not yet shown an ability to sustain his dominant performance over an extended time. His period of “dominance” consists of six gold medals in two different world class tournaments, which pales in comparison to athletes like Michael Phelps, Edwin Moses, or Carl Lewis who all won multiple medals over much longer time spans. That is not to say that Bolt will NOT continue his dominance, but it may be a bit premature to classify him as the most dominant ever.
On the other hand, as Loyal Homer writes, Bolt is not just winning average races against average competition. During the 100m finals at the World Championships, Tyson Gay turned in a time of 9.71s. With that time, Gay officially became the fastest man in history… EXCEPT for Usain Bolt, who actually ran .13s FASTER than the person who WOULD HAVE been the fastest man ever. Usain Bolt is not just defeating average competition. The bar he sets is so high that even the fastest men in history cannot match his speed!
But, does that make him the most dominant athlete ever?
Based on the arguments presented by Loyal Homer and Sports Geek, the answer to that question is no, it does not… Winner – Sports Geek
While I do not agree with Sports Geek on several points (specifically regarding technology and youth), the points made about longevity and competition cannot be overlooked. In order to make the argument that Usain Bolt is the most dominant athlete in history, it needs to be proven over an extended period of time against a broad range of competition. When you consider the scope of all athletes in all sports, Bolt has done little more than defeat the same athletes two different times, first in the 2008 Olympics and then at the 2009 World Championships. While the manner in which he won those events was extremely impressive, it does not yet qualify him as one of the greatest ever.
If Bolt is still setting world records 5-10 years from now, and is doing so against the “next generation” of competition, perhaps then he will be considered the greatest of all time. Until then, we’ll just have to settle for watching the fastest man alive.
Posted by Bleacher Fan 
