v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 6

First topic message reminder :

Friday’s group saw another two potential G.O.A.T's progress into the knockout stages Olympic champion runner Michael Johnson and batting icon Brian Lara, Johnson led the group from the outset and finished with 51% of the vote. Leaving the tournament at the first time of asking are Emil Zatopek and Juan Manuel Fangio.

Today’s group sees Boxing, Tennis, Basketball and Golf compete for your votes.

We have just the one participant championed today with articles written by forum members, so please feel free to submit your own argument below for those not championed.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Margaret Court- Tennis- Championed by 88Chris05

Margaret Court was, quite simply, the most prolific and consistent winning machine in the history of tennis, irrespective of gender. Between 1960 when, as a fresh-fashed seventeen year old, she won her first 'Major' at the Australian Open ladies singles event, and 1975, she accumulated a phenomenal - and still unbeaten - 62 'slam' titles; 24 in singles (also a record to this day), 19 in doubles and 19 in mixed doubles.

Never has any player case such an incredible shadow over all three forms of the game and, as the thought of top players mixing these three events continues to become rarer and rarer, it's unlikely that anybody else will again.

Court's fellow Australian Rod Laver will forever be near the top of any respectable 'greatest ever' list for tennis - quite rightly, too - for his remarkable feat of doing 'the Grand Slam' (all four of the majors in the same year) not only once, but twice; the first time in 1962 as an amateur and then again in 1969, a year after the beginning of the 'Open Era' which allowed professionals to compete in these events.

But Court's claim to fame is, I'd suggest, even more unique and meritorious - she is the only player in history to have done 'the Grand Slam' in two forms of the game. She did it as a singles player in 1970 (and, as such, can safely plead 'not guilty' to having simply dominated a sub-par amateur field), and as a mixed doubles player twice - in 1963 and 1965. She fell ever so slightly short of this in ladies doubles, but she did complete the 'career Slam' in that form, winning all four of the majors with a female playing partner at some time or another. In fact, she won them all at least twice apiece.....In all forms of the game!

Naturally, the schism which existed between amateur and professional tennis means that Court's career may be slightly more difficult to evaluate in comparison to someone like Steffi Graf or Martina Navrarilova, two women who frequenty tussle with her for the title of the greatest female player in history. However, let's consider this - Court was not able to play professional tennis until the age of twenty-six, hardly 'old' by any stretch of the imagination, but still a relatively advanged age in women's tennis, even some four and a half decades ago. If we concentrate on Court's majors count until that point in 1968, we see that it stood at eleven.

However, as a professional, she was able to add another thirteen singles majors which, on it's own, puts her behind only Graf, Navratilova, Chris Evert and Serena Williams in the open, professional era. Given that these ladies won their first professional slams aged seventeen, twenty-one, nineteen and eighteen respectively, it seems likely that, in any case, Court would have added to that number even if she had been a professional from the off. So while some will say that her record of 24 singles major titles is to be taken with a pinch of salt, I disagree strongly.

Moreover, the professionals who had been winning many of the majors in tennis before Court began playing for pay, such as Margaret Smith and Maria Bueno, were duly swept aside once this incredible Australian made the transition from the amateur majors (known as the 'Australian championships') to the professional ones (known as the 'Australian Open', for clarification). There can, then, be absolutely no doubt that Court was by far and a way the finest player of her time, and reigned as such for over a decade which, in tennis terms, equates to lightyears.

To me, Court may well be one of the most underrated sportwomen - no, make that sportspeople in general - to have ever lived. Had she emerged a decade or so later, we'd all have a place carved out for her in our sporting legends lists, and she'd have been one of her generations' mega stars. But as she herself explained, the nature of tennis before the seventies (and the emergence of a certain Mr Borg, who helped bring the sport to the masses) meant that her almost impossible exploits were always going to get the attention they deserved: "I saw Rod win both of his Grand Slams, and really nothing much was made of them at the time. You have to remember that their was no TV or money like there is today to make such a big thing of it, and it wasn't until I came back to the circuit after getting married that the idea of me going for a Grand Slam myself became such a big goal."

In my article on the great Bjorn Borg, I touched upon the fact that he was the complete player, hence why he was able to achieve the French Open-Wimbledon double so many times back in the days when clay court tennis and grass court tennis were, to again quote the long-time coach of André Agassi, Gil Reyes, "like two totally different sports." Court herself achieved this remarkable back-to-back feat in 1970 and, in total, triumphed in the ladies singles at the French Open five times (1962, 1964, 1969, 1970 and 1973) and Wimbledon three times (1963, 1965, 1970). Clearly, then, she was the complete player of the women's game; John Parsons, a long-time journalist within the sport, wrote in his 2009 'World Tennis book' that Court was "blessed with a fierce serve and attacking volleys - she was the major force in women's tennis, an all-court competitor in every sense."

Even more remarkably, Court - who was known affectionately as 'Big Marge' by her fans - overcame motherhood, traditionally a nail in the coffin of a female's tennis career, to prosper - along with Kim Clijsters, she is the only woman to have won three majors after having a child. But then again, she was the ultimate competitor who defied logic time and time again - after a temporary retirement in the mid sixties, she returned to sweep all before her and, in 1970 at the age of thirty, came out victorious against fellow legend Billie Jean King in the longest Wimbledon ladies singles final in history, winning 14-12, 11-9 over a gruelling two hours and twenty-eight minutes.

For me, it's a travesty that when we talk of great women in sport, the name of Margaret Court seldom gets a mention - and yet, she owns records which may never be broken within her field, spent longer at the top of her game than any woman would normally have any business doing in the world of tennis and played a key role in guaranteeing the survival of women's professional tennis when it was in its infancy.

In later life, she became an ordained Reverend - and whatever you think of religion in its classic sense, you can't deny that Margaret Court was a tennis Goddess at the very least.

offcourse

however I will add that although i do not think of my theory as complete fact. I do believe that golf has evolved and that as humans we get better and better and evolve all the time in sport- as long as participation and fitness and stuff gets bigger and improves all the time. As long as it doesnt stagnant-. Therefore as a rule the field strength will get better and better for golf. Golf isnt a sprint that can be quantified. But we all know that Athletics records are allways beaten. Golf has gone through the same evolotion so i suggest that the field was stronger in woods time from previous ones - well the chances of it are more likely anyway- there will allways be anomolies that break the rule!

But the fact is jack has 4 more majors, so therefore i would suggest he pips him. However i am not 100% sure on this and in my slightly golf biased opinion- I think both players should be in any top 5 GOAT of all sport all time!

Super - Since you keep trying to derail this debate with personal slurs, and stinging rebukes to points you have misunderstood. Perhaps these statistics will give you a better idea of the simple point we're trying to make...

In 2009 the average rank of the four Major winners was 71:
Cabrera - 69th
Glover - 71st
Cink - 33rd
Yang - 110th

In what other major sport could this occur? Honestly? In what other sport could the rank of the winners of the biggest prizes it had to offer over the course of a year average 71? As a reference point, the 71st ranked player on the ATP Tennis Tour is Daniel Gimeno-Traver - will he win the Australian Open currently taken place? No - we'd guess he'll be knocked out tonight in the 2nd Round, as his ranking befits.

And those players in '09 weren't all young hotshots on their way to greater things. Here we are 3 years later, and Lucas Glover missed the cut in 10 of his 16 events last year, Cabrera and Yang both failed to place in the Top-10 anywhere, and Stinkin' Stewart Cink is currently ranked somewhere in the 300s.

And 2009 is by no means a one-off year. In 2003, we watched in shocked silence as world number 395 Ben Curtis won the British Open, then less than a month later The Heartbreak Kid Shaun Micheel won the PGA ranked 169th. In fact, Micheel is a perfect example - he's taken part in 375 tour events, has only cracked the top-3 on three occasions - yet just happened to win the biggest prize in his sport. It's a lottery.

You'll remember Paul Lawrie (159th) in 1999 - You must do if your memory stretches back to that Chesterfield run. And he only won because the even more anonymous Jean Van De Velde had a meltdown on the 18th. Modern Golf is littered with one-hit-wonders everywhere you look - people who have sprung from mediocrity, and then, crucially, disappeared back into the abyss just as quickly. Todd Hamilton? Rich Beem? We caught him on TV the other day, and called his family to let them know he'd finally been sighted.

We hope your Silver Medal winning friend is still playing, because truthfully, as countless others have proved, his shot at gold could still come.

Now come on Super, you call yourself a 'realist' - How could you possibly deny given what you've just read that there is a comparatively small gap between those at the top and those somewhere in the middle? That there is an enormous pool of talent, where on any given day, one man could prove superior to the next. Surely this is part of the attraction of golf? It's merely that it is an attraction that passes us by. It's why we can appreciate the consistency of someone like Nicklaus, and yet in a competition designed to find the Greatest of All Time we are reluctant to choose one from a sport where it is difficult to even predict who will be the Greatest on Any Given Day.

This is all we are trying to argue.

Hans, no other sport has field has 128-150 players playing directly against one another and no player can influence another.
You simply don't understand golf and or sport in general.

Anyway, all your stats prove is that there are a large amount of very good golfers as there are in all sports, not that there is a short gap between a club golfer and a top pro, which is the ridiculous scenario you were painting previously and which your entire argument was based before you changed the goalposts to suit your inferior argument.

And of course you should use the tense "I" when posting, when it is a single person doing it, unless you have loads of your sad friends with you coming to a decision on what you should write.

I've never said a golfer should win this, but be under no illusion that golf is incredibly difficult to be good at.

Super
Whats the number of opponents playing directly against you got to do with it?
Take a look at Joe Louis sport, boxing, you only have one opponent who is looking to take you out. just try it for three minutes, and you will comprehend the highest extreme of a sports competitive environment.

I think we all know that if golf was easy, then we all would be doing it, but please dont try to sell it as a competitive environment. compared to some others its nothing.

How about if boxing had 128-150 guys all going at it once like golf, oh no wait that's just my local town centre on a Friday night.

Auckland, it's simple. If the field is say a typical tournament of 150 players, and none of them can directly influence how another player plays and no player is knocked out like in a Football Cup or Tennis tournament then it's obvious that its a far more open field. Surely you can understand that.

Players are not directly playing against one another like they are in virtually every other sport, players are not drawn to play against other players.
Everyone starts on zero, and lowest score wins. It's not team v team, man v man, so no one can do you any favours, by knocking out someone.
Therefore, with so maany people in a tournament, it stands to reason it's going to throw up a lot more different winners from throughout the field. Only an idiot would think that this translates to golf being easier or having a weaker strength in depth.

I think you are misinterpreting by what I mean as competitive. I'm not meaning the competition against others like boxing. I mean the field is of a very high standard, thus a competitive field.

super_realist wrote:Auckland, it's simple. If the field is say a typical tournament of 150 players, and none of them can directly influence how another player plays and no player is knocked out like in a Football Cup or Tennis tournament then it's obvious that its a far more open field. Surely you can understand that.

Players are not directly playing against one another like they are in virtually every other sport, players are not drawn to play against other players.
Everyone starts on zero, and lowest score wins. It's not team v team, man v man, so no one can do you any favours, by knocking out someone. Therefore, with so maany people in a tournament, it stands to reason it's going to throw up a lot more different winners from throughout the field. Only an idiot would think that this translates to golf being easier or having a weaker strength in depth.

I think you are misinterpreting by what I mean as competitive. I'm not meaning the competition against others like boxing. I mean the field is of a very high standard, thus a competitive field.

My point entirely...

but I jest, I agree golf is competitive, however in a comparison to boxing and in the same breath its just not relevant.

Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

I've only come to this late, and not read the whole argument, but my two cents worth is that to say a golf field are not in direct competition is too simplistic a viewpoint. I fully accept that they do not compete head to head, but one mans performance can most definitely have an effect on anothers.

At the very top level of sport, what tends to separate competitors is not physical ability, but mental application. If in golf one man is playing well, it may be that another falters under the pressure, therefore he has had an effect on his opponent. Similarly, if a player is birdying every hole going out, but somebody else is keeping pace a couple of holes behind him, the pressure may tell and they may falter on the back nine.

Just because sports people aren't directly knocking each other out of a competition it does not mean that they cannot and do not affect each others performance.

It's really just a rehash of the Bradman debate isn't it?

Does one incredibly dominant player mean the standard of the rest is poor, or that that player is very very good?

Or, put another way, if loads of different players can win any given tournament, is that an indication that there is no stand-out player and the overall standard is average, or that there are many very very good players all capable of winning?

I would argue it can be both. For example, we would I hope agree that the standard in tennis has been better in the last 3 or so years when realistically only 4 players will win the majors than it was at the start of the 2000s, when we had loads of different winners. On the flip side I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that standards haven't improved in snooker since the years of Hendry's domination.

So, I don't think the presence of loads of possible winners (or on the contrary a few very dominant players) can be used as a "proof" of anything about standards. I don't think anything can, apart from the evidence from our own eyes.

Ozzy3213 wrote:I've only come to this late, and not read the whole argument, but my two cents worth is that to say I golf field are not in direct competition is too simplistic a viewpoint. I fully accept that they do not compete head to head, but one mans performance can most definitely have an effect on anothers.

At the very top level of sport, what tends to separate competitors is not physical ability, but mental application. If in golf one man is playing well, it may be that another falters under the pressure, therefore he has had an effect on his opponent. Similarly, if a player is birdying every whole going out, but somebody else is keeping pace a couple of holes behind him, the pressure may tell and they may falter on the back nine.

Just because sports people aren't directly knocking each other out of a competition it does not mean that they cannot and do not affect each others performance.

Actually what I think you are talking about there is Choking under pressure,I presume you are talking about a particular Greg Norman performance, and not the All Blacks at World Cup time???

You can call it 'choking' if that's how you choose to define it, but my point is that the pressure in this situation comes from the performance of other players in the field, which means that they have influenced how another player has played.

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

Does it matter?
Woods has physical skills that Tyson probably doesn't and vice versa

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

Did I say that?

Super said there was no physical effort and there is, hence why Tiger got himself in good shape.

Don't know why this emphasis on physical fitness is so important.
To me a 'sport' is a competative pastime which relies on some form of physical ability, a 'game' is something that relies solely on mental ability.
Thus darts is a sport, but chess is a game.

Stella wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

Did I say that?




Super said there was no physical effort and there is, hence why Tiger got himself in good shape.

In fairness to super, I would regard a fighting fit 21 year old Mike Tyson would have to have a much bigger engine and bigger physical power toolbox than say a 21 year old tiger woods.

yeah, but woods could land one on tyson from 100 yards out wheras poor mike would need to be inside an arms length to get anywhere near tiger

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

Did I say that?




Super said there was no physical effort and there is, hence why Tiger got himself in good shape.

In fairness to super, I would regard a fighting fit 21 year old Mike Tyson would have to have a much bigger engine and bigger physical power toolbox than say a 21 year old tiger woods.

Maybe but I wasn't arguing about that. That's why I only highlighted the bit about Golf having virtually no physical effort. I've never boxed but have shadow boxed in my lounge for approx 10 mins and was done in afterwards, so I can understand boxers being much fitter than your average Golfer.

barragan wrote:yeah, but woods could land one on tyson from 100 yards out wheras poor mike would need to be inside an arms length to get anywhere near tiger

But if Mike could get tiger in a prison cell... tiger'd be f....d.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:Don't know why this emphasis on physical fitness is so important.
To me a 'sport' is a competative pastime which relies on some form of physical ability, a 'game' is something that relies solely on mental ability.
Thus darts is a sport, but chess is a game.

Not sure I agree, there has to be a reasonable level of physical activity otherwise video games can be classified as sports as you need manual dexterity to use a control. And lets face it you'd burn a lot more calories playing say a skiing game on the Wii than playing darts.

nah - mike would be tired out after working his way through the other 149 players in tigers field

i am totally with hoggy on this.. and have mentioned it plenty

it doesnt matter the amount of physical activity in the competetive pasttime. it just needs some.. darts has some. chess doesnt

Stella wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

Did I say that?

Super said there was no physical effort and there is, hence why Tiger got himself in good shape.

You can still be a fat out of shape knacker and win a major as many have done and continue to do so. Physical fitness isn't a requirement for Golf, it might help, but it isn't essential. We nearly had a wrinkly old pensioner win a couple of years back. Not a sport, despite the skill involved.
If you are alive, can stand and swing a club, you have the basics required.

re gaming -interesting- but i suppose we draw the line when its digital, and offcourse the more important factor is that playing wii and being the best isnt important enough to stick the player on a GOAT debate., but hey in the future anything is possible..

i'd consider golf a sport over fighting though super. i mean, should 'fighting' really be considered a sport when all it does is represent the weakest and most disappointing frailty in humankind

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

Did I say that?




Super said there was no physical effort and there is, hence why Tiger got himself in good shape.

In fairness to super, I would regard a fighting fit 21 year old Mike Tyson would have to have a much bigger engine and bigger physical power toolbox than say a 21 year old tiger woods.

Ok but the main point in all this is who could hit a golf ball further? who could swing a club faster!! Tiger by a long way..

You can be over toned in golf, you can also be over toned in many sports as well. It affects your ability. However in golf you can also be a bit fat as well... Different shapes help you become better at certain sports. being strong or fiut has never had a bearing in how we define a sport so i still dont get the argument or the point in the debate

"Physical fitness isn't a requirement for Golf, it might help, but it isn't essential."

true but physical fitness doesnt define what a sport is.. its that simple

super_realist wrote:

Stella wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Agreed, I don't even consider golf a sport as there is virtually no physical effort involved.
Boxing is tough as nails though.

By the way, who is this Hans clown?

Sorry but that is crap. Woods is was super fit and realised he had to be, to help him be the best.

Seriously?? Are you trying to suggest that Tiger Woods is a fitter,twitch muscled honed human speciman than say a 21 year old Mike Tyson....

Did I say that?

Super said there was no physical effort and there is, hence why Tiger got himself in good shape.

You can still be a fat out of shape knacker and win a major as many have done and continue to do so. Physical fitness isn't a requirement for Golf, it might help, but it isn't essential. We nearly had a wrinkly old pensioner win a couple of years back. Not a sport, despite the skill involved.
If you are alive, can stand and swing a club, you have the basics required.

Didn't Foreman win the world title at the age of 50?

boxing has allways been abit of a joke in regards to crowning the best anyway. At least with golf you can stick the best players in an event all playing against themselves and the course. In boxing its all about politics and money and all that jazz as to who fights who..

Stella & Mystir

I think I'd rather have have George Foreman watching my back than John Daley. or is it Dailey???

same here- however thats not the question is it? we are not looking for a bouncer

Makes a top grilling machine as well.

mystiroakey wrote:same here- however thats not the question is it? we are not looking for a bouncer