I am not denying the fact that winning 2 MVP's would in fact be very impressive in terms of a pitcher and dominance...I am saying that (to me personally) Randy's 2001 to 2002 season(s) clearly shows dominance, in almost every pitching achievement kind of way...So if you list players who won 2 MVP's and some of the accomplishments they did in those 2 years, than I will say (in my opinion) whether it was as dominant or not, based on pitching...but if your going to say that 2 MVP's Alone, compared to Randy's 2001 to 2002 season(s) with conjuntion to Pitching achievements, then my answer is still no...
Well, here's what you said about Verlander's MVP award:
if Justin Verlander had a great season, in which 7 players have EVER done...then by simple understandings means it was "close" to one of the 7 most dominant by a pitcher ever! (least award wise it was) and I say close, because there are variables that go into it such as awards not being given out back years ago) But in terms of when awards came into play, then it was!
So, in other words, if a pitcher wins the MVP award, he is, by definition, one of the most dominant pitchers ever. That fact alone should mean that a pitcher who wins the MVP award two years in a row is, by definition, the most dominant pitcher ever over a two-year span, wouldn't you agree?
And it seems like you trying to "take away" from what Randy did....
Not at all. I think Johnson was an excellent pitcher in 2001-02 and deserved the Cy Young award in at least 2002 (Schilling was arguably a better pitcher in 2001). But throwing no-hitters or winning the world series MVP awards are relatively minor achievements in the grand scheme of things. And in any event, Johnson didn't throw a no-hitter in 2001-02, so I'm not sure why you even tossed that in there.
How much harder is it to throw a Perfect game than an MVP to a pitcher, because that is what Randy did...
Yeah, in 2004, when he went 16-14.
and second, think of the way he won the World series MVP...he did not win it as a slouch....He stopped and shut down the yankees at one of the strongest Modern day era's that has ever been. With the yankess as 4 time champs, (I hate to bring this up, but to me it is relavent) and right around 9-11...and so therefor, I personally think that the truth is somewhere in the middle of your view and mine....
No, none of that 9/11 stuff is relevant -- if it was, New York would have won. And Johnson wasn't even the D'Backs' number one starter in the series, which gives you a sense of how dominant his manager thought he was.
If you list who you think is the most dominant, I will gladly listen...
I've already done that and no you won't.