Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kansas basketball winning or tying for the Big 12 conference title for about 15+ straight years (and well on their way to another this year). The Braves run in baseball was good, but it was a professional sport so you could legitimately keep all of their main players around. In college, you are only in school a maximum of 4 years, but at a power school like Kansas most of the star players are leaving after 1 year, maybe 2 years at most. So, despite the constant reshuffling that goes on year after year after year they can still win more than 10 straight conference championship's is remarkable.
Kansas basketball winning or tying for the Big 12 conference title for about 15+ straight years (and well on their way to another this year). The Braves run in baseball was good, but it was a professional sport so you could legitimately keep all of their main players around. In college, you are only in school a maximum of 4 years, but at a power school like Kansas most of the star players are leaving after 1 year, maybe 2 years at most. So, despite the constant reshuffling that goes on year after year after year they can still win more than 10 straight conference championship's is remarkable.
Excellent choice; conference championships in college basketball have become too much an afterthought. I would be hesitant though to state yet that Kansas is well on their way to another. It looked like that could be the case for a while, but now they managed to move the top. But it is still a close race with several other schools having stellar years.
New England Patriots (2001-Present): Unrivaled greatness for over a decade and a half...
Very good post..
And the Pats have developed a dynasty in an era of hyper free-agency.. when it's difficult to keep a good cast together for a long time. That (to me) makes New England's dynasty more impressive than the 7os Steelers & 8os Niners.
I'm always impressed by the streaks of long health.. bcuz there are so many injuries in sports.. Cal Ripken, Brett Favre.. not missing a single start for 15+ years(etc) is wild..
cal ripkin certainly deserves credit for breaking lou gerhigs consecutive game record, but i am not sure which was more impressive. ripkin breaking the record in the modern era, or gehrig setting it in the dawn of baseball when the conditions were tougher.
either way they both did it with style. and their stats are very similar;
Thinking about Gehrig and Ripkin... very comparable players. i think Gehrig was the better hitter but wonder how he or Ripken would have fared against the others pitching foes... I think if they played in the same era, their hitting stats would likely be closer... I also think Ripkin likely plays 1st or outfield in Gehrig's era and wonder how that might have affected his stats or streak. I think SS is a much tougher position and likely puts you in a spot to be more injury prone.
Not sure how conditions might have affected either. Both seemed immune to them. But of course, Gehrig traveled by train, never venturing past St Louis during the regular season and played 154 per year vs 162... Personally, having flown too damn much in my life, I would prefer a cozy train sleeper vs a first class seat on a plane any day of the week....
ok lets look at the conditions each player would have faced. ripkin played in a time of more luxury for the players, meaning the locker room equipment, training staffs, travel options, etc. back in gehrigs day, the trainer would throw an ice pack on you for most injuries. sports medicine was not very developed as a field of medicine. you didnt have a team doctor handing out pain killers, treating long term injuries with the drugs available today. if you were injured then, you toughed it out, unless the injury was sufficient enough to take you out of the game, then you went to the hospital.
back then you played through a concussion, rather true of ripkin as well.
as for the pitching, in gerhigs time, pitchers would throw at you, and dare you to come off the batters box and do something about it, in ripkins day, the pitchers would get ejected from the game. in gerhigs day you were more likely to get run over by your opponent if you were anywhere close to the base path, in ripkins day not so much, unless you were a catcher. in ripkns day, the teams put a premium on all around play and contributions to the team, in gerhigs day, the teams put a premium on hitting, and being able to at least catch the ball from time to time.
in the end i think that if you swapped the players to the others era, both would still perform about as well as they did. gerhig would probably have played longer, and ripkin not quite as long though.
What other individuals or teams do you believe have had historically great runs?
Difficult to top the historical excellence of the All Blacks. Since their inception in 1903, they have a winning percentage of 77.21%, (W437, L109, T20). That's over 114 years! Just over a year ago, Ireland beat them for the first time in history, going all the way back to 1905. Most countries they have played have never defeated them. They do not have a losing record against anybody! The worst win/loss/draw record they have is against South Africa at 60%, (57/35/3). They have not lost on their home grounds, (Eden Park), since 1994, over 23 years!
Difficult time to find another team that has done so well for so long.
Kansas basketball winning or tying for the Big 12 conference title for about 15+ straight years (and well on their way to another this year). The Braves run in baseball was good, but it was a professional sport so you could legitimately keep all of their main players around. In college, you are only in school a maximum of 4 years, but at a power school like Kansas most of the star players are leaving after 1 year, maybe 2 years at most. So, despite the constant reshuffling that goes on year after year after year they can still win more than 10 straight conference championship's is remarkable.
It was good, but as a Braves fan I sadly look at that great run as mostly a disappointment. Those teams were too good with too much talent and pitching to only win 1 World Series.
It was good, but as a Braves fan I sadly look at that great run as mostly a disappointment. Those teams were too good with too much talent and pitching to only win 1 World Series.
Braves were a Cinderella when they came out of no where in 1991. The 91 World Series was as close-as-could-be and even in 92, one pitch could have been the difference. At least those were pretty even match-ups. They definitely let that 93 NLCS slip thru their hands and were better than the Phillies. And they were superior to the Yankees in 1996, and easily jumped to a 2-0 series lead with the next three games in Atlanta. That was so strange how each of those series got away from them. Very odd. After that, I kind of expected the Braves to fall flat in the playoffs- and they always did. Got back to the series once in 99- but clearly the Yankees were better that time around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
