The GOAT Competition

by Adam D Thu 21 Feb 2013, 9:35 pm

First topic message reminder :

Good Evening all,

You might have noticed that the GOAT section has been removed for the time being.

I am sure you will all agree that this has been a great feature over the last month and a huge thank you to MtotheC (and competitor champions)for running a very good event.

Unfortunately, after an indepth investigation, we have discovered widespread skulduggery when it has come to the voting of several ties.

Due to this, we have temporarily suspended the competition whilst we discuss what to do next. Needless to say, the member has received a permanent ban and this will not happen again.

Feel free to leave suggestions below but we are looking at specific ties and the possibility of rerunning these.

For the time being though, I would like to thank you all for your continued contributions to these threads - service will resume shortly

by Guest Sat 23 Feb 2013, 2:37 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:it's a bit sad TBH that one utter twonk has been able to ruin what has been a really enjoyable exercise, with some great debates, and which I personally thought the admins did a great job in setting up and organising. People have suggested limiting voting to posters who've been around a while and contributed, but I don't think that's even possible, and I certainly don't think it's desirable, as there may be new members that are interested in the debate and wish to contribute, so excluding them seems harsh to me.

Ultimately when you set up this sort of thing it's just meant to be a bit of harmless fun, so it's a real shame it degenerated like this (again, because of one very sad individual). The solution someone proposed of having one page for debate and a separate voting page where posters who wish to vote just leave the name of the candidate they're voting for (no polls) could work as at least you're controlling who's doing the voting (and suspicious votes can be immediately discounted). Could mean a fair bit of additional work for the admins though...

Careful now warning

In my capacity as a freelance moderator I am on the hunt for new versions of Spaghetti.

No one is above suspicion..

ghost

emancipator

by MtotheC Sat 23 Feb 2013, 3:02 pm

emancipator wrote:
Mad for Chelsea wrote:it's a bit sad TBH that one utter twonk has been able to ruin what has been a really enjoyable exercise, with some great debates, and which I personally thought the admins did a great job in setting up and organising. People have suggested limiting voting to posters who've been around a while and contributed, but I don't think that's even possible, and I certainly don't think it's desirable, as there may be new members that are interested in the debate and wish to contribute, so excluding them seems harsh to me.

Ultimately when you set up this sort of thing it's just meant to be a bit of harmless fun, so it's a real shame it degenerated like this (again, because of one very sad individual). The solution someone proposed of having one page for debate and a separate voting page where posters who wish to vote just leave the name of the candidate they're voting for (no polls) could work as at least you're controlling who's doing the voting (and suspicious votes can be immediately discounted). Could mean a fair bit of additional work for the admins though...

Careful now

In my capacity as a freelance moderator I am on the hunt for new versions of Spaghetti.

No one is above suspicion..

emancipator

We...I mean I just lol'd emancipator! Whistle

by Henman Bill Sat 23 Feb 2013, 10:12 pm

Enjoying the competition. Could you put a rule on the forum that new members are not allowed to vote in polls for a week or a month or something? Can you allow only 1 account to be registered per computer/ IP address?

by Corporalhumblebucket Sat 23 Feb 2013, 10:52 pm

Anyone who says Bradman is not up to much has got to be a suspicious character for starters.... Very Happy

by McLaren Sun 24 Feb 2013, 2:07 am

Henman Bill wrote:Enjoying the competition. Could you put a rule on the forum that new members are not allowed to vote in polls for a week or a month or something? Can you allow only 1 account to be registered per computer/ IP address?

I pretty terrible idea when you consider that the GOAT exercise is a prime exercise for attracting new members. This is not an old boys club, it is a place to discuss sport.

by aucklandlaurie Sun 24 Feb 2013, 7:15 am

I never knew that the reason for the GOAT awards was to attract new members!!!

Well if thats the case then its been a raging success. trouble is they have all been idiots.

by Glas a du Sun 24 Feb 2013, 7:53 am

Perfect! We have lots of them already...

by McLaren Sun 24 Feb 2013, 8:55 am

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I never knew that the reason for the GOAT awards was to attract new members!!!

Well if thats the case then its been a raging success. trouble is they have all been idiots.

I have no idea if that is the official reason but it has to help attract new members and also to integrate posters from different sections of the forum. I bet a lot of posters stick to posting on one sport.

by **superflyweight** Sun 24 Feb 2013, 9:03 am

Integration has been a mixed bag. On one hand, have had a chance to read posts from some very good posters, on the other, I've been exposed to Hans and reading super-realist's posts mean that I'm going to have to start a course of strong anti-depressants.

by **ShahenshahG** Sun 24 Feb 2013, 9:09 am

Burn some frankincense superflyweight - better than any pill and you can pretend to be wise! Laugh

hope no one saw that

by **superflyweight** Sun 24 Feb 2013, 9:36 am

Damn, all I got for Christmas was myrrh.

by **ShahenshahG** Sun 24 Feb 2013, 10:10 am

superflyweight wrote:Damn, all I got for Christmas was myrrh.

Thats what happens when a scotsman asks for second helpings

by hjumpshoe Sun 24 Feb 2013, 1:35 pm

emancipator wrote:
hjumpshoe wrote:Hi all! I am a long time member of this site as well as the old 606. My main interest and passion is rugby but i also have a real interest in most other sports as well. Unfortunately im a very busy man{self employed with 3 kids at home}, otherwise id contribute a lot more to the site. I do, however, regularly drop in for an hour or so just to enjoy some of the amazing knowledge that a lot of you have. I also really enjoy a lot of the wit and banter, though not the blatant wumming, especially during a good thread that is provoking interesting debate and discussion. I have thoroughly enjoyed this GOAT competition, and have found the time to read it most days. Ive never voted because im too busy reading what i can in limited time while being jumped on by the kids, but each day i sort of decide in my own mind who i would choose and, more often than not, the vote goes that way. For the record, my idea of a GOAT is based not only on the individuals ability but also their impact on their particular sport, and in some circumstances, the sporting world as a whole. Therefore, after much deliberation, my top 5 is as follows:
5. Jahangir Khan
4. Donald Bradman
3. Roger Federer
2. Pele
1. Muhamed Ali

New account, new name befinning with H..

I say BAN HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM NOW!!

emancipator
Special mentions go to Michael Jordan, Kelly Slater, Tiger Woods, Eddy Merckx and Sugar Ray Robinson.

Cymru Am Byth

Haha but i dont even like spaghetti!!!! Rolling Eyes

by hjumpshoe Sun 24 Feb 2013, 2:12 pm

Also, Stephen Hendry and Phil Taylor deserve a mention as well, as the undoubted GOATS of their sports! Oh and David Bryant Garry Kasparov! Tumbleweed

just me then! Run

by VTR Sun 24 Feb 2013, 2:56 pm

I'm giving hjumpshoe the benefit of the doubt as it says he joined in 2011. Also he doesn't mention Lebron James and rates The Don in among a solid top 5.

Han's Top 5 would read:

1) Lebron James
2) Lebron James
3) Lebron James
4) Michael Jordan
5) Himself

by **ShahenshahG** Sun 24 Feb 2013, 2:59 pm

Themselves surely?

by hjumpshoe Sun 24 Feb 2013, 3:03 pm

VTR wrote:I'm giving hjumpshoe the benefit of the doubt as it says he joined in 2011. Also he doesn't mention Lebron James and rates The Don in among a solid top 5.

Han's Top 5 would read:

1) Lebron James
2) Lebron James
3) Lebron James
4) Michael Jordan
5) Himself

Awwww thanks mate! Hug

lol

by hjumpshoe Sun 24 Feb 2013, 3:23 pm

And im a Kobe man myself! Very Happy

by User 774433 Sun 24 Feb 2013, 4:17 pm

Hans was a delusional Federer fan, don't forget that too.

by hjumpshoe Sun 24 Feb 2013, 4:50 pm

Federer is/was awesome mind! To achieve what he has in a very competitive, athletic, individual sport is very impressive indeed! Okay, Nadal beats him on clay, but Nadals pretty impressive as well lets be honest so theres no shame there! Hans{and his other personalities}, on the other hand, was neither impressive nor at all amusing so i have little time for such numpties im afraid!

by Rowdy Rod Sun 24 Feb 2013, 5:00 pm

The competition has been fantastic, so hopefully it will be back without any further mishaps.

Well done to the people who run it and well done to those who caught the guy! It would have been easier to ignore it but you deserve credit for making sure that a wrong was righted.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 24 Feb 2013, 6:48 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Hans was a delusional Federer fan...

Is there any other kind (in your opinion)?

by User 774433 Sun 24 Feb 2013, 7:02 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Hans was a delusional Federer fan...

Is there any other kind (in your opinion)?

Of course.

I wouldn't say you are delusional would I?

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun 24 Feb 2013, 7:08 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Hans was a delusional Federer fan...

Is there any other kind (in your opinion)?
Of course.

I wouldn't say you are delusional would I?

Dunno, you seem to have somehow got it into your head that I'm a Fed fan, so you could say anything Smile

by User 774433 Sun 24 Feb 2013, 7:25 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Hans was a delusional Federer fan...

Is there any other kind (in your opinion)?
Of course.

I wouldn't say you are delusional would I?

Dunno, you seem to have somehow got it into your head that I'm a Fed fan, so you could say anything

Well I'm saying it now: you're not delusional (when it comes to tennis anyway, god knows what your views on politics are. Probably a communist comedian going by your username).

by Hibbz Mon 25 Feb 2013, 4:41 pm

They've been showing some LeBron James action on SkySports News all day. Pretty impressive.

Maybe we.... er I mean Hans was right all along.

by VTR Mon 25 Feb 2013, 5:56 pm

Hibbz wrote:They've been showing some LeBron James action on SkySports News all day. Pretty impressive.

Maybe we.... er I mean Hans was right all along.

Call it serendipity but Michael Jordan was just on Pointless in a picture round. Only 2 out of 100 people they asked recognised him. They must have asked a different set of people than the 60+ that keep voting for him on here Laugh

by Diggers Mon 25 Feb 2013, 7:29 pm

VTR wrote:
Hibbz wrote:They've been showing some LeBron James action on SkySports News all day. Pretty impressive.

Maybe we.... er I mean Hans was right all along.

Call it serendipity but Michael Jordan was just on Pointless in a picture round. Only 2 out of 100 people they asked recognised him. They must have asked a different set of people than the 60+ that keep voting for him on here

I'd suggest though that's two more than would have recognised his opposition Wayne Gretzky or SRR so its all relative.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 7:34 pm

Not relative when Jordan is/was meant to be a worldwide superstar whereas the other two weren't described as such.

by Hibbz Mon 25 Feb 2013, 8:04 pm

VTR wrote:
Hibbz wrote:They've been showing some LeBron James action on SkySports News all day. Pretty impressive.

Maybe we.... er I mean Hans was right all along.

Call it serendipity but Michael Jordan was just on Pointless in a picture round. Only 2 out of 100 people they asked recognised him. They must have asked a different set of people than the 60+ that keep voting for him on here

I got him but my wife didn't. To be fair he was dressed in a suit and looking old. Had he have been playing basketball I reckon more would have got it and as Diggers says Gretzky and Robinson would have been "pointless". Besides which I reckon half that show is fixed anyway.

nb I think the wife would have got Gretzky as she's quite an ice hockey fan

by Diggers Mon 25 Feb 2013, 8:40 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Not relative when Jordan is/was meant to be a worldwide superstar whereas the other two weren't described as such.

Really , sounded like SRR was a deity according to some of the posts never mind a global superstar.

by VTR Mon 25 Feb 2013, 8:47 pm

Chaps, stop taking my comment about Pointless so seriously. It was a fat, old Michael Jordan who even his own mother wouldn't recognise. I just found it funny post Hans-gate it crops up on there and it only scored 2. That's all!

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 9:17 pm

You are without doubt a tool of the highest order.

Boxing fans hold Robinson in high esteem because he's the greatest to have ever laced up a pair of gloves, don't let your own bias get in the way of the fact he dominated his sport, an individual sport during a very stacked period.

by Hibbz Mon 25 Feb 2013, 9:31 pm

Not sure how someone can be said to have dominated a sport when there would presumably have been several other people also claiming World Championship belts at other weights.

Many of whom would have knocked him senseless were they to fight.

Boxing is one of the few sports where people of all sizes don't compete against one another. Definitely reduces Robinson's claims to the GOAT title in my opinion.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 9:47 pm

The only champion who would have knocked him senseless is Marciano, like all combat sports boxing has weight limits, it levels the playing field. He was the best fighter on the planet much like Mayweather is now and Silva is in UFC, it's not as though Basketball is a level field is it, only those with specific physical gifts can excel. He was the best fighter on the planet for 10 years over 3 weight divisions, having only 3 losses in 140 fights to his name.

by Hibbz Mon 25 Feb 2013, 9:55 pm

I think you pretty much make my point. If boxing were along the same lines as basketball then Robinson wouldn't have got anywhere. Imagine if someone suggested height divisions for basketball, they'd be laughed out of town.

I'm not buying that only Marciano would have beaten him either there would have been countless heavyweights that would have.

Oh and just to rub salt in the wound if you type sugar ray into Google the first boxer that they suggest is Leonard!

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 10:15 pm

Leonard doesn't come close to Robinson so it doesn't bother me all that much. During Robinson tenure as an elite level fighter the only heavyweight who would blitzed him would be Marciano, word of advice don't comment on things you don't know about.

by Diggers Mon 25 Feb 2013, 10:16 pm

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You are without doubt a tool of the highest order.

Boxing fans hold Robinson in high esteem because he's the greatest to have ever laced up a pair of gloves, don't let your own bias get in the way of the fact he dominated his sport, an individual sport during a very stacked period.

What bias ? I much prefer boxing to basketball, its not even close. I just don't happen to wear rose tinted spectacles about the flaws the sport has.
But you carry on bleating. It suits you.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 10:17 pm

Why don't you elaborate on these flaws, boxing unlike basketball caters for all shapes and sizes.

Plus Hibbz, google search brings up it's results in alphabetical order.

by Diggers Mon 25 Feb 2013, 10:25 pm

It's also the only sport that pays people with no right to be called professional sportsmen to turn up and lose. It's open to huge errors because of poor judging, fighters often don't meet ( Burkey and SRR as an example) for a huge variety of reasons. These things rarely happen in other sports.
At its best boxing is a wonderful pure sport but it has huge flaws as well.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 10:36 pm

Burley and Robinson didn't actually fight in the same division during the latters elite years, it gets bandied about very often about that prospective fight but with very little evidence to back it up. They could have fought in hindsight but at the time it made very little sense.

by milkyboy Mon 25 Feb 2013, 11:01 pm

Do you want me to dig out the hall of fame thread where all the boards big hitters accused Robinson of being a ducker ghosty? Only for common sense to prevail and them settle on burley bring the only black mark against him? It didn't make sense for Robinson to fight him because it was a risk... Which unfortunately proves diggers point.

You're right he is a tool though

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 11:08 pm

Thing is Milky everyone bangs on about Robinson ducking Burley but I don't see a timeframe when the fight could and should have happened, by the time Robinson beat Bell for the Welterweight tile Burley had moved up to middleweight. Thereafter he stayed at middleweight until his retirement in 1951 by which time it was a good 4 years since he was a major player in the division. Robinson could possibly have moved up sooner but he was busy beating the high risk Kid Gavailan for welterweight supremacy. The most sensible time for the fight to happen would have been around 1945 at which point neither were a world champion.

by Diggers Mon 25 Feb 2013, 11:18 pm

More to the point pretty much everyone ducked Burley, which is what highlights boxing flaws. Whether PBF ducked Manny or vice versa its just pretty much inconceivable that the sports two biggest stars fighting around the same weight will never meet in a meaningful bout. Ditto to an extent JC and Roy Jones.
It's like Coe and Ovett or Federer and Nadal or Bolt and Gay never meeting.
Too much politics and money and dodgy geezers in boxing sadly and it has always been the same sadly.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 11:25 pm

Calzaghe and Jones is inconsequential, they operated at different weights.

You mean Wade, Williams, Chase, Moore, Zivic, Charles, Cocoa Kid, Marshall, Hogue and Bivins all ducked Burley because I thought they all faced him, as far as world class opposition goes he faced them all. It just so happened that the majority of them were black and frozen out of the title scene. In the grand scheme of things the world champions of the day were the secondary tier fighters.

by milkyboy Mon 25 Feb 2013, 11:42 pm

Both burley and robbo were at similar weights in non-title fights in the mid 1940's, when burley was still live. It didn't happen because as a black fighter then, Robinson was being made to wait to get a title shot himself and they didn't want to run the risk of scuppering it. i could be wrong but think they were scheduled to fight in 45/46, but it fell through over money wrangles... ie robinson priced himself out.

Probably a debate to take to the boxing board rather than here. Burley fought all those guys you mention ghosty, but he was avoided by the world champions which I guess is the point diggers was trying to make. As diggers says, there's countless other examples, and we're all too well aware that the best fights don't always get made.

by Imperial Ghosty Mon 25 Feb 2013, 11:59 pm

In a twisted way I think the BMR being frozen out of the world title scene was arguably a good thing as far as match ups went. It might have been for far less money but a Burley vs Charles/Moore means a lot more than a Burley vs LaMotta or Cerdan. The best fought eachother in the 40's and 50's it just wasn't for a world title.

To me Burley vs Robinson is a fight that could have happened not one that should necessarily have happened, back in 1945 it's hard to predict you'd be talking about two of the greatest fighters who ever lived not that I think Burley was head and shoulders above his counterparts anyway. In Robinson you're talking about a guy who took risks all the time, before his eventual title shot he'd already beaten Wilson, LaMotta, Angott, Zivic, Bell, Armstrong and Lello. All guys who were current, former or future world champions, the ducking of Burley is romanticised to add glamour to reputation. What greater marketing ploy is there than saying 'the greatest of all time ducked me'.

by spencerclarke Tue 26 Feb 2013, 12:10 am

I was watching pointless tonight and only 2 people out of 100 recognised a recent picture of michael jordan. Just saying.....

by milkyboy Tue 26 Feb 2013, 12:20 am

Ghosty, in principle, in those days you fought the other contenders to earn the right to fight the champion... so robinson fought all those guys but the one obvious omission was burley. Agree with much of the sentiment of your last post though... But rowley will have kittens if he reads it.

Spencer, did you watch the repeat?

by Imperial Ghosty Tue 26 Feb 2013, 12:26 am

Hindsight is a wonderful thing Milky.

by Sponsored content