Is dominance in sports good or bad for competition?

good

1 of 2

by Craig Miles

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

For those who think dominance in a sport is a bad thing, you've obviously never dominated a sport before.

Try playing a sport, dominating, and then being told that because you are too good, too brilliant, this is a detriment to he rest of the competition.

What drives sport is competition. People compete so they, or their team, can be the best there is. In many sports, using such things as World Records and other various historic statistics, a sportsman can become a legend. Sir Donald Bradman is one of the greatest sporting heroes Australia has ever seen. He didn't play anywhere near as many matches as someone like Steve Waugh, but he has been heralded for his finishing batting average of 99.94, unheard of in test cricket.

Although this benchmark may be unbreakable, people strive to be as good as Bradman. They learnt from him, how he played and went about his daily business. The result of this was an emergence of furture Australian cricket stars, which paved the way for such batting greats as the Waugh brothers and Ricky Ponting. Consider sports without legends and heroes, the drive for competition simply would not be as strong.

Your name is Roger Federer and you dominate every tennis player that sets foot on court against you. You are heralded as one of the greatest tennis players to ever live. The truth of the matter is, this is probably correct in every sense. Tennis has developed immensly over time. From the days of Rod Laver and John McEnroe, the skills of tennis players has changed rapidly. They are hitting the ball harder and faster now, their athleticism (arguably) is superior and these older style players probably would not be able to keep up with the players on the current ATP tour. Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi both dominated the sport for a significant amount of time, but it only paved the way for players such as Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick, and later the champion himself, Roger Federer.

Roger Federer in the early 21st century, seemed unstoppable. He was simply miles above the rest of the pack. How could this possibly be bad for competition? A legend is created, something kids and adults alike can look up to. However more importantly, it has brought about the emergence of players with equally the amount of potential as Federer. Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic both would be winners of grand slams several times over without the current competition there is in the top 4, and you could even go as far as the top 50 and top 100.

Imagine horse racing without dominance of horses, there would be no legends. There would be no benchmark for the new breeds of horses. The Triple Crown would not exist because no one would ever win it. For a horse to win this, they would need to dominate. Horses and trainers would seldom improve beyond their abilities and competition would remain stable, even dwindling down, rather than increasing. Horse Racing is a sport that prides itself on dominance, because even the dominant horses have their bad days or are unlucky, allowing a new champion to be crowned.

The Australian Football League (AFL) for the past two seasons has had a clear dominant figure; the Geelong Cats. Seemingly unbeatable, they went on to record a record-winning Grand Final in 2007 and played off for the Grand Final in 2008 where they lost to Hawthorn after losing only one game the entire year. Hawthorn's win was significant, they were the rank outsiders and many didn't give them a chance.

This just goes to show that dominance doesn't mean competition will lack spirit and fight. Nor does it show the competition will wilter. Instead, it shows dominance is a benchmark for creating a much more competitive sport and raising the bar in terms of skills and athleticism, in many sports. Dominance isn't a bad thing for competition, it creates it.

Learn more about this author, Craig Miles.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.