How would you rate or compare longevity vs dominance?
Obviously wording here is imprecise, since you must show sort of dominance over the longer period to qualify for "longevity".
So both these examples include dominance, but one is more congested while other is diluted over longer period.
Where's the tipping point?
E.g. we would consider 3 Wimbledon titles in a row as more impressive than 3 titles over the course 4 years, right?
But are 3 titles over the course of e.g. 20 years perhaps more impressive than 3 in a row, why yes and why not?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)