What sports records will stand the longest?

[David Sklansky]

I wasn't joking. I believe it is more interesting to speak of this subject where luck plays only a small part. Otherwise this question boils down to mainly probability theory.

Meanwhile if you do want to bring these other sports records to play, HOW DARE YOU GUYS offer opinions without doing a little math. Some of the records you nominate are at least a hundred times more likely than others to be broken. Simple probability would show this.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't joking. I believe it is more interesting to speak of this subject where luck plays only a small part. Otherwise this question boils down to mainly probability theory.

Meanwhile if you do want to bring these other sports records to play, HOW DARE YOU GUYS offer opinions without doing a little math. Some of the records you nominate are at least a hundred times more likely than others to be broken. Simple probability would show this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy crap. Did DS just post in OOT? Gentlemen, I think we have finally hit the big time.

[ThaSaltCracka]

hmmmmmm, so what you are saying is feats and records that involve someone maxing their potential (ie weightlifting) are more impressive and less likely to be broken because statistically speaking, very few people are able to reach that level. However, statistically speaking its possible for someone to say get a base hit for 57 straight games.

[kemystery]

[ QUOTE ]

You mean to tell me nobody will win all 4 majors in the next 100 years? I highly doubt that. We've managed to have Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Faldo, Norman, Tiger and company in the last 50 years. It's foolish to say nobody of a just as great (or greater) caliber could pull the grand slam off in the next 100-200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny of the players mentioned above only three have even captured all four tournaments over their entire careers (to be fair half are still active) Hogan won three of the events in a year, Nicklaus (2). Nobody has even come close before or after Woods. I stand by the statement that that accomplishment will never be matched *(in my lifetime)

[apd138]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

You mean to tell me nobody will win all 4 majors in the next 100 years? I highly doubt that. We've managed to have Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Faldo, Norman, Tiger and company in the last 50 years. It's foolish to say nobody of a just as great (or greater) caliber could pull the grand slam off in the next 100-200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

funny of the players mentioned above only three have even captured all four tournaments over their entire careers (to be fair half are still active) Hogan won three of the events in a year, Nicklaus (2). Nobody has even come close before or after Woods. I stand by the statement that that accomplishment will never be matched *(in my lifetime)

[/ QUOTE ] There is only one name on this list that is actively competing in this.

[housenuts]

sklansky, we're trying to have a fun conversation about sports records, and you pipe in about math. i respect you, but let's keep the equations out of this one.

michael johnson's 200m record didn't involve any luck? do you know what the wind speed was that day? did he manage to get a perfect start? perhaps he was just about to have a false start as the gun went off.

this is about sports records that won't be broken. it's not about the best sports achievements.

and in fact, i would contend that it's the ones that involved a little luck that won't be broken. because not only did they need "luck", as you say, but they also need to be finely tuned athletic specimens. the probability of these two culminating in the same game, event, or season, is less likely than the future development of the human body to surpass previous marks in sports like running, jumping, and weightlifting.

now if you define luck as the fact that for example wayne gretzky was lucky to play hockey in the free-wheeling 80s where it was much more likely to amass more points then that is fair. nonetheless i don't foresee those records being broken.

no one will get 215 points in a hockey season again without rule changes.

no one will score 100+ points in a basketball game again without rule changes.

and although not a record perse, no pitcher will strike and kill a bird out of mid-air on a pitch like randy johnson did.

[evain]

For those of you familiar with the sport of cricket - Don Bradman's record of averaging 99.94 will nerver be broken by anyone playing more than 50 Test matches (Bradman played 52 I think).

[Gamblor]

The only competitive activity that involves ZERO luck whatsoever is chess.

[housenuts]

it's funny, but i read somewhere that due to the severe complexity of chess, that there actually can be a little luck involved. i can't see it myself, but i read this somewhere.

anyways, i admit i looked these up because i was interested but i don't see these being broken either:

59 -- Consecutive scoreless innings pitched by Orel Hershiser in 1988. That's a lot of zeros. Back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back shutouts and change.

110 -- Career shutouts by Walter Johnson. Nolan Ryan, who pitched 26 years, finished with 61, which is tied for seventh place with Tom Seaver. Bob Gibson, who threw 13 shutouts in 1968, had 56 in his career. Clemens is the active leader with 46.

130 -- Bases stolen by Rickey Henderson in 1982. Other Ricky himself, no player has come within 50 since Vince Coleman stole 109 in 1987.

and someone earlier mentioned a record for triples. good point.

36 -- Triples legged out by Chief Wilson in 1912. In the past 50 years, only four players have topped 20 in a season: Willie Mays (20 in 1957), George Brett (20 in 1979), Willie Wilson (21 in 1985) and Cristian Guzman (20 in 2000).

[randomchamp]

check out some of these:
Wilt the stilt