Red Mosquito • View topic

mowbs · **Posted:** Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:47 pm

Consider this for any individual sport...

Someone with a 20-2 record whose only losses are to the #1 and #2 ranked people in the world, or

Someone with a 20-2 record who has beaten the #1 and #2 ranked people in the world, but has lost to a couple of guys who are ranked lower?

warehouse · **Posted:** Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:53 pm

20-2 is pretty impressive no matter how you look at it. but ill go w/ the first one

Ricardo Tubbs · **Joined:** Thu Dec 02, 2004 6:08 pm **Posts:** 8255

I'd go with the person who beat the #1 and #2 ranked people. They've shown they possess the ability to play/perform at the highest level.

Peter Van Wieren · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:31 pm **Posts:** 7610

second one, and it's dumb as hell to say the first with only that information. that guy or team might have not beaten anyone in the top 150.

mowbs · **Posted:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:23 am

Peter Van Wieren wrote:

second one, and it's dumb as hell to say the first with only that information. that guy or team might have not beaten anyone in the top 150.

Good point.

Assume he's world class, and that 20-2 record is based on competing with the world's best. That goes for both scenarios.

Orpheus · **Posted:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:07 am

Like tubbs said, the second one has shown the flashes of brilliance necessary to be a champ.

Ozymandias · **Posted:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:51 am

The 2nd because he/she could legitimately be the best. EVERYONE loses to inferior opponents sometimes in sports.

In the first scenario, you're third best.

rich · **Posted:** Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:54 am

Ozymandias wrote:

The 2nd because he/she could legitimately be the best. EVERYONE loses to inferior opponents sometimes in sports.

In the first scenario, you're third best.

Yup, that's how i see it

Which is more impressive?

Who is online