ADVERTISEMENT

Greatest Upsets in Sports History

WhatTheHeel?

WhatTheHeel?

All-American
Mar 31, 2002
2,096
1,316
113
England's loss to Iceland got me thinking about this. An internet search turns up countless lists and I posted one from ESPN below. Not included in many of the lists I've found was Chaminade's 1982 upset over Ralph Sampson-led Virginia. Another huge upset was App. State over #5 Michigan in football a few years back.

What do you consider some of the biggest upsets in sports history?


ESPN LIST (From 2013)
1. U.S. beats Soviets Olympic ice hockey, 1980
2. New York Jets defeat Baltimore Colts, Super Bowl III, 1969
3. Villanova tops Georgetown to win 1985 NCAA championship
4. Buster Douglas KOs Mike Tyson for heavyweight championship, 1990
5. Man O' War loses only race, to 100-to-1 shot Upset, 1919
6. Denver Nuggets eliminate Seattle SuperSonics in 1994 NBA playoffs
7. Jack Fleck beats Ben Hogan at 1955 U.S. Open
8. New York Mets defeat Baltimore Orioles for 1969 World Series
9. Rulon Gardner overpowers Alexander Karelin for Greco-Roman wrestling gold, 2000
10. N.C. State knocks off Houston to win 1983 NCAA championship
 
I know a lot of u dont like soccer but leceister winning The premier league is EASILY the greatest upset of all time. The odds were 5000/1! The biggest longshots to win ncaa bball tourney are 2000/1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11
I wasn't here for the Miracle on Ice, so I can't speak to that one, but my vote would go to any huge underdog that won in a 7-game series. Every now and then, you're going to see the stars align just once for a major one-time upset in a game...but to be able to sustain that and do it in a 7-game series is a lot harder IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raising Heel and coolwaterunc
Blue2010 said:
I wasn't here for the Miracle on Ice, so I can't speak to that one, but my vote would go to any huge underdog that won in a 7-game series. Every now and then, you're going to see the stars align just once for a major one-time upset in a game...but to be able to sustain that and do it in a 7-game series is a lot harder IMO.
Click to expand...
That's why the Leicester City title is the most impressive. They sustained it over a 38-game regular season where you play every team once home and once away. It's a perfectly balanced and competitive schedule. And they still won.
 
I think the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl (either time, honestly, but particularly the first time) has to be in the running. Patriots were undefeated, Giants had a 10-6 regular season and had to play on the road every playoff game up to the Super Bowl. That Tyree helmet catch is still one of the craziest plays I've ever seen. I would have to have that towards the top of the list, particularly in my lifetime.
 
heelz2345 said:
I think the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl (either time, honestly, but particularly the first time) has to be in the running. Patriots were undefeated, Giants had a 10-6 regular season and had to play on the road every playoff game up to the Super Bowl. That Tyree helmet catch is still one of the craziest plays I've ever seen. I would have to have that towards the top of the list, particularly in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
Those two Super Bowls honestly made me stop liking the NFL. I despise the wild card concept in American sports. I hate how all leagues are money whores and let more and more teams into the playoffs. There's no way on earth the Giants should've won the Super Bowl that season....they were terrible in the regular season. The only thing they did right was get healthy at the right time and get on a roll at the right time.

Playoffs are stupid, unless you restrict it to, at most, the four best teams.
 
Your take on that is so foreign to me. You've laid out exactly why playoffs are so awesome. The team that's better on paper doesn't always win. That's what makes sports interesting and exciting, and it's why playoffs are THE superior way to crown a champion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910
Blue2010 said:
I wasn't here for the Miracle on Ice, so I can't speak to that one, but my vote would go to any huge underdog that won in a 7-game series. Every now and then, you're going to see the stars align just once for a major one-time upset in a game...but to be able to sustain that and do it in a 7-game series is a lot harder IMO.
Click to expand...

Was that Nuggets/Sonics series a 7 gamer? I thought first round games were still only 5 game series then.

WhatTheHeel? said:
ESPN LIST (From 2013)

9. Rulon Gardner overpowers Alexander Karelin for Greco-Roman wrestling gold, 2000
Click to expand...

That was a huge deal. It certainly doesn't get the publicity that the others did because nobody cares about wrestling. But Karelin hadn't lost in 13 years - 13 YEARS! And he hadn't even given up a point in 5 years or something ridiculous. And we had never had a gold medal winner in Greco-Roman. Underrated feat. Should be higher on the list.

WhatTheHeel? said:
England's loss to Iceland got me thinking about this. An internet search turns up countless lists and I posted one from ESPN below. Not included in many of the lists I've found was Chaminade's 1982 upset over Ralph Sampson-led Virginia. Another huge upset was App. State over #5 Michigan in football a few years back.

What do you consider some of the biggest upsets in sports history?


ESPN LIST (From 2013)

4. Buster Douglas KOs Mike Tyson for heavyweight championship, 1990
Click to expand...

I remember this fight like it was yesterday. I watched all of Tyson's fights back in the before pay-per-view days. I had never been as shocked by the outcome of a sporting event as I was with that. And I would say that holds true still to this day. That was the pinnacle of Tyson's career and Douglas was an absolute nobody. Tyson had just wrecked a far more noteworthy and accomplished boxer in Carl the Truth Williams in his previous fight (first round KO) and the Douglas fight was really just put together and held in Japan in an effort to market Tyson more globally and create a buzz for a big future fight with Holyfield. Tyson looked so bad in that fight and so different from any fight prior that in the moment, I honestly thought he was throwing it. But now looking back on it, it's like Tyson likes to say, "everyone has a plan until you get hit in the mouth". He had never been hit like that and he and his corner were simply unprepared. For my money, this is the greatest upset in the history of sport.

I also got laid that night making it even more memorable for me.
 
Blue2010 said:
Pretty sure this one was a best-of-5 series. This is probably my first actual upset memory. NBA JAM was the best and Shawn Kemp was a beast on that.
Click to expand...

gunslingerdick said:
I used Barkley and Kevin Johnson on NBA Jam. I was unstoppable. "He's on FIRE!"
Click to expand...
There's a new "barcade" in Charlotte that has the old NBA Jam game. We had a boys night there a couple months ago. I probably spent $10 in quarters trying to recapture my previous skill level. No such luck, but that game is still one of the best ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheel0910, heelz2345 and Blue2010
heelz2345 said:
I think the Giants beating the Patriots in the Super Bowl (either time, honestly, but particularly the first time) has to be in the running. Patriots were undefeated, Giants had a 10-6 regular season and had to play on the road every playoff game up to the Super Bowl. That Tyree helmet catch is still one of the craziest plays I've ever seen. I would have to have that towards the top of the list, particularly in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

I was going to "like" this but can't - for obvious reasons. The Patriots were 14.5 favorites in the 1st one if I recall correctly. That has to be the biggest point spread upset in Super Bowl history. I think they were like 3 point favorites the second time around, so not as bad of a loss that time.

JuleZ '02 HEEL said:
Your take on that is so foreign to me. You've laid out exactly why playoffs are so awesome. The team that's better on paper doesn't always win. That's what makes sports interesting and exciting, and it's why playoffs are THE superior way to crown a champion.
Click to expand...

I guess I sort of fall in between you and THN. I think playoffs are great, because it's the best going against the best, and the loser gets eliminated - that breeds excitement. However, if there are too many teams let in - that A) diminishes the quality of play, and B) allows teams that aren't even in the top 5 best teams in the league to be the champion, if they catch a hot/lucky streak at the right time.

I hate the NBA playoffs because they let 16 teams in, but only 2 or 3 of them have a chance at winning it all. All the first and second round series are a joke. It doesn't even get semi-interesting until the conference finals. That seems to be a problem with the league though, as the NHL has the best, most exciting, playoffs of the 4 major sports, while also allowing 16 teams in. The LA Kings won the cup a couple years ago as an 8 seed. I can't remember the last time an 8 seed in the NBA even won a series, let alone the whole thing.
 
JuleZ '02 HEEL said:
Your take on that is so foreign to me. You've laid out exactly why playoffs are so awesome. The team that's better on paper doesn't always win. That's what makes sports interesting and exciting, and it's why playoffs are THE superior way to crown a champion.
Click to expand...
Hey at least I'm consistent though because I've argued this many times over the years on here. I think I even started a thread on here about my hatred of playoffs. Having a wildcard win a Super Bowl or a World Series is a joke.

But at least in football, the playoffs are a decent percentage of the regular season. I.E. you have to win 3-4 playoff games to win the Super Bowl which is equivalent to 18.75 - 25% of the season. Compare that to friggin baseball where you have 3-4 series determine the champion after a 162-game regular season? That makes no sense. You play 162 games and then you suddenly get to a scenario where you have three "first to four" series in a row to win the whole thing? Those two are such polar opposites of each other; it makes no sense.

For baseball, it should be at most, two teams from each league make the playoffs. Those two duke it out in a first to 7 series, then you have the World Series which would also be first to 7.
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
For baseball, it should be at most, two teams from each league make the playoffs. Those two duke it out in a first to 7 series, then you have the World Series which would also be first to 7.
Click to expand...

I'm with you for the most part - but I think a "first to 7" is a bit much. A best of 13 series? By game 13 people would be so sick of watching the two teams play each other. I'm all for shaving a month or two off the regular season. I would be fine with only having 2 teams from each league making the playoffs - but only if they scrapped the divisions. I forget what year it was, but when the Mariners won 110+ games one year (I believe it was Ichiro's rookie season) - they just feasted on a crappy AL West, and weren't the best team in the AL (as was shown in the playoffs). Meanwhile the AL East cannibalized itself so those teams' records were worse.

I'd even be for scrapping the AL and NL, and just having a 30 team league with somewhat even scheduling, with the top 4 of the "table" making the playoffs. Of course that would only come about if the NL would get with the times and scrap the pitcher hitting. I mean, I appreciate the baseball purist argument about how having the pitcher bat introduces strategy, and makes the manager's role more important, etc. But the fact is that nowadays pitchers blow at hitting (I guess Bumgardner is an exception, even though he's really just all power - his average still sucks). People like to see scoring, and the DH contributes to scoring.
 
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I'm with you for the most part - but I think a "first to 7" is a bit much. A best of 13 series? By game 13 people would be so sick of watching the two teams play each other. I'm all for shaving a month or two off the regular season. I would be fine with only having 2 teams from each league making the playoffs - but only if they scrapped the divisions. I forget what year it was, but when the Mariners won 110+ games one year (I believe it was Ichiro's rookie season) - they just feasted on a crappy AL West, and weren't the best team in the AL (as was shown in the playoffs). Meanwhile the AL East cannibalized itself so those teams' records were worse.
Click to expand...
Okay you're right, first to 7 was a bit extreme. I'm open to negotiations on the number of games in the series. First to 4 would be fine.

Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I'd even be for scrapping the AL and NL, and just having a 30 team league with somewhat even scheduling, with the top 4 of the "table" making the playoffs. Of course that would only come about if the NL would get with the times and scrap the pitcher hitting. I mean, I appreciate the baseball purist argument about how having the pitcher bat introduces strategy, and makes the manager's role more important, etc. But the fact is that nowadays pitchers blow at hitting (I guess Bumgardner is an exception, even though he's really just all power - his average still sucks). People like to see scoring, and the DH contributes to scoring.
Click to expand...
You bite your tongue, sir. I will stop watching baseball if the NL gets the DH.



(Okay I won't stop watching but I'll still be friggin furious. National League games are way better. The DH concept is lame.)

 
TarHeelNation11 said:
(Okay I won't stop watching but I'll still be friggin furious. National League games are way better. The DH concept is lame.)
Click to expand...

Maybe this is a debate better suited for your Braves thread - but for the average fan, the DH makes the game more exciting. Baseball in general is dealing with dwindling viewership because the games are so long and boring. Watching guys who probably couldn't even make a Single-A squad as a position player stand up there and take at-bats in an MLB game is a cure for insomnia.

I do agree that the strategy is better (with the whole double switch thing, pulling pitchers an inning early if they're spot in the order comes up in a key offensive situation), and it makes players have to be slightly more athletic (i.e. you can't just be some fat ass DH that only has to be physically able to swing a bat - not needing to have to have the skills to play the field). The thing I like the most about it is that the pitcher has to stand in the box himself. Not because I like to see him attempt to swing a bat, but because if he drilled someone the previous inning - he knows that he could be ducking for cover himself. I loved Pedro Martinez when he was on the Red Sox, but that guy had no qualms about drilling guys, because he knew he wouldn't have to get up there and get drilled himself.

But when the game is hurting for excitement, it's not going to get casual fans to tune in to see those intricacies. Having a DH that produces more offense and more home runs is what will bring in more fans.
 
TarHeelNation11 said:
National League games are way better. The DH concept is lame.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

As for @Hark_The_Sound_2010 I've only got one thing to say to you

pyitf.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: TarHeelNation11 and Hark_The_Sound_2010
Hark_The_Sound_2010 said:
I was going to "like" this but can't - for obvious reasons. The Patriots were 14.5 favorites in the 1st one if I recall correctly. That has to be the biggest point spread upset in Super Bowl history. I think they were like 3 point favorites the second time around, so not as bad of a loss that time.



I guess I sort of fall in between you and THN. I think playoffs are great, because it's the best going against the best, and the loser gets eliminated - that breeds excitement. However, if there are too many teams let in - that A) diminishes the quality of play, and B) allows teams that aren't even in the top 5 best teams in the league to be the champion, if they catch a hot/lucky streak at the right time.

I hate the NBA playoffs because they let 16 teams in, but only 2 or 3 of them have a chance at winning it all. All the first and second round series are a joke. It doesn't even get semi-interesting until the conference finals. That seems to be a problem with the league though, as the NHL has the best, most exciting, playoffs of the 4 major sports, while also allowing 16 teams in. The LA Kings won the cup a couple years ago as an 8 seed. I can't remember the last time an 8 seed in the NBA even won a series, let alone the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Colts were 18 point favorites over the Jets in '69 and won handily 16-7. I remember the game like it was yesterday. The colts couldn't get a thing going offensively the whole game.
 
Honorable mention to the 2004 Red Sox and their comeback from a 3-1 deficit in the ALCS winning Game 7 on the road against the hated wankees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

keysersosay#1

The 5 Greatest shots in Carolina history

Replies
32
Views
2K
Tar Heel Radar
CrazyHeel
CrazyHeel
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back