v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

by MtotheC Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:35 am

First topic message reminder :

The final group of the last 16 see football, cricket, athletics and golf battling it out for your votes and the final 2 spots in the last 8

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:59 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
emancipator wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Impact outside their sport more important than "being the best ever in their sport" for me, so I went for Owens. You can't measure the best within a sport except in exception circumstances (Bradman... and even then people will disagree) and the achievements of every sportsperson, to borrow a phrase from Sir Isaac, are largely from standing on the shoulders of giants. If not for Owens, would we ever have had Johnson or Bolt? Without

Transcending the sport or impact outside of the sport is a side issue for me.

Some people make an impact purely because of circumstances which allow for this. Take Owens for example. He simply ran his races and jumped his jumps. The rest of the legend was created because he happened to be at the right place at the right time. He had no say in any of that. It was destiny if you like. Should that then make him the greatest sportsman of all time or elevate him above someone else who may have had greater sporting achievements but had no comparable vehicle by which to transcend their sport to the degree that Owens was able to, simply due to a twist of fate?

If transcendence is so important then popular figures thorughout history, for whatever reason, be it beneficial or through notoriety, would be the GOATs of humanity. Isn't it more logical to weigh and consider more worthy the one uniting factor in all of this; sport and thus sport achievement?

emancipator

The whole point of sport and sport entertainment is the effect it has on other people and how it changes the lives of individuals and societies. Without this it is meaningless and IMO has no merit whatsoever

Yet some sportsmen may transcend their sport in ways that have no connection to the sport at all. Would such a person ever be considered the GOAT? I think not. Thus transcendence as a barometer cannot be put above sporting achievement. The latter should be ranked higher and the former should be a product of the latter otherwise it is meaningless in this debate.

by ChequeredJersey Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:59 pm

super_realist wrote:People don't get into playing sport in order to entertain people or change their lives, so is it meaningless to them?

Well, it still has an effect on their lives, but on the grander scale of things, I suppose so, yes, just like as much as I enjoy singing and playing sport, if I stopped doing either the effect on the world would be minimal at most. The achievements within any sport are artificial, they only have whatever meaning we attribute to them and we can only attribute anything to them if we allow them to affect us. If we are going to base our criteria for "greatness" on how entertained or impressed we are by someone's sporting achievements, why ignore more significant effects of the same people and achievements that actually facilitated a lasting rather than transient change? That makes no sense. Our only criterion is the effect these sportspeople have had on us so to restrict that in the way that ignoring "transcending sport" does makes no sense to me at all

by super_realist Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:02 pm

I'm not interested in whether someone transcends sport, it has no bearing on how much they have achieved, which is surely the primary consideration from setting the good from the best.

by ChequeredJersey Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:03 pm

emancipator wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
emancipator wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Impact outside their sport more important than "being the best ever in their sport" for me, so I went for Owens. You can't measure the best within a sport except in exception circumstances (Bradman... and even then people will disagree) and the achievements of every sportsperson, to borrow a phrase from Sir Isaac, are largely from standing on the shoulders of giants. If not for Owens, would we ever have had Johnson or Bolt? Without

Transcending the sport or impact outside of the sport is a side issue for me.

Some people make an impact purely because of circumstances which allow for this. Take Owens for example. He simply ran his races and jumped his jumps. The rest of the legend was created because he happened to be at the right place at the right time. He had no say in any of that. It was destiny if you like. Should that then make him the greatest sportsman of all time or elevate him above someone else who may have had greater sporting achievements but had no comparable vehicle by which to transcend their sport to the degree that Owens was able to, simply due to a twist of fate?

If transcendence is so important then popular figures thorughout history, for whatever reason, be it beneficial or through notoriety, would be the GOATs of humanity. Isn't it more logical to weigh and consider more worthy the one uniting factor in all of this; sport and thus sport achievement?

emancipator

The whole point of sport and sport entertainment is the effect it has on other people and how it changes the lives of individuals and societies. Without this it is meaningless and IMO has no merit whatsoever

Yet some sportsmen may transcend their sport in ways that have no connection to the sport at all. Would such a person ever be considered the GOAT? I think not. Thus transcendence as a barometer cannot be put above sporting achievement. The latter should be ranked higher and the former should be a product of the latter otherwise it is meaningless in this debate.

In which case this is a lost cause as you cannot compare sports or eras or different achievements even within a sport. The debate is interesting but everyone will leave with essentially the same opinion that they came in with based predominantly on their own bias on what sports they grew up with and played. And the majority of "trancensions" are based on the candidate's actions within their sport. If something doesn't fall within their sporting area at all, by all means I intend to place little significance on it, but I don't see that as the case here

by ChequeredJersey Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:05 pm

super_realist wrote:I'm not interested in whether someone transcends sport, it has no bearing on how much they have achieved, which is surely the primary consideration from setting the good from the best.

Fine that's your choice and basis for selection, it's just not one that I could or would ever use

by super_realist Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:08 pm

By your rationale though, someone who is famous by virtue of a sycophantic media and in a trendy marketable sport can gain more recognition for their achievements than someone from the opposite end of the spectrum but who has won more.

Doesn't seem fair to me. Sounds like you are basically choosing the person who is most famous.

by Stella Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:14 pm

Like Ali?

by mystiroakey Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:17 pm

There is the fact that a famous sporting star will be(by default) part of a high participation sport and a sport where achievement is rewarded- thereby motivating excellence to a higher standard than a non famous sport.

by super_realist Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:18 pm

Indeed, certainly not the Boxing GOAT but the masses hold him in regards because of his fame rather than achievements.

by ChequeredJersey Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:19 pm

super_realist wrote:By your rationale though, someone who is famous by virtue of a sycophantic media and in a trendy marketable sport can gain more recognition for their achievements than someone from the opposite end of the spectrum but who has won more.

Doesn't seem fair to me. Sounds like you are basically choosing the person who is most famous.

I wouldn't really say that fame is effecting people or changing anything, and nor is transcendence the only criterion I'd use, I just think it is a more useful one than "greatness within a sport" because I know maybe 2-3 sportsmen that a majority of fans would say were indisputably the best in their sport, one who got voted out last round as it happens, and even then you have no idea at all how much better or worse someone would be in any era other than the one they played in. Not that transcendence is any easier to ascertain and quantify but there's more consensus that Ali (who was also one of the best in his sport) or Owens influenced the world than that Federer or Pele were actually the best at the sport they play(ed)

by ChequeredJersey Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:21 pm

super_realist wrote:Indeed, certainly not the Boxing GOAT but the masses hold him in regards because of his fame rather than achievements.

Where as the most logical step would be to look at a combination of both influence and achievements (which are pretty spectacular anyway). What thing in the the entire universe is best decided by one criterion?

by super_realist Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:23 pm

Fair enough, more than one criterion probably is required, but I don't see the level of fame they have achieved as being suitable.

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:23 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:
emancipator wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:
emancipator wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Impact outside their sport more important than "being the best ever in their sport" for me, so I went for Owens. You can't measure the best within a sport except in exception circumstances (Bradman... and even then people will disagree) and the achievements of every sportsperson, to borrow a phrase from Sir Isaac, are largely from standing on the shoulders of giants. If not for Owens, would we ever have had Johnson or Bolt? Without

Transcending the sport or impact outside of the sport is a side issue for me.

Some people make an impact purely because of circumstances which allow for this. Take Owens for example. He simply ran his races and jumped his jumps. The rest of the legend was created because he happened to be at the right place at the right time. He had no say in any of that. It was destiny if you like. Should that then make him the greatest sportsman of all time or elevate him above someone else who may have had greater sporting achievements but had no comparable vehicle by which to transcend their sport to the degree that Owens was able to, simply due to a twist of fate?

If transcendence is so important then popular figures thorughout history, for whatever reason, be it beneficial or through notoriety, would be the GOATs of humanity. Isn't it more logical to weigh and consider more worthy the one uniting factor in all of this; sport and thus sport achievement?

emancipator

The whole point of sport and sport entertainment is the effect it has on other people and how it changes the lives of individuals and societies. Without this it is meaningless and IMO has no merit whatsoever

Yet some sportsmen may transcend their sport in ways that have no connection to the sport at all. Would such a person ever be considered the GOAT? I think not. Thus transcendence as a barometer cannot be put above sporting achievement. The latter should be ranked higher and the former should be a product of the latter otherwise it is meaningless in this debate.

In which case this is a lost cause as you cannot compare sports or eras or different achievements even within a sport. The debate is interesting but everyone will leave with essentially the same opinion that they came in with based predominantly on their own bias on what sports they grew up with and played. And the majority of "trancensions" are based on the candidate's actions within their sport. If something doesn't fall within their sporting area at all, by all means I intend to place little significance on it, but I don't see that as the case here

All the parameters in this debate become subjective when comparing across different disciplines; transcendence is no different - it too is subject to inherent bias and shaped by all manor of factors unrelated to sport. Factors which abound for some but were absent for others.

I agree that the achievements need to be substantive enough to move us, or leave an impression, stir the emotions etc, but I disagree with the notion that this needs to be achieved through transcendence. Some sporting achievements are so great that they stir all of those emotions the moment one becomes aware them, such as Jahangir Khan's 555 match winning streak. I was unaware of this feat but the moment I learnt of it I was in awe of the accomplishment.

by Guest Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:26 pm

I suppose it's a matter of degrees. Both play a role, just our relative weighting's differ.

by **laverfan** Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:24 pm

Sobers, closely followed by Owens.

by Hibbz Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:57 pm

I've gone for Maradona. Napoli retiring his number 10 shirt says it all for me.

Maradona played when defenders were not only allowed to tackle you
fairly they were also allowed to repeatedly "let you know they were
there".

by invisiblecoolers Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:33 pm

Went for Diego the Hand of God, but yes its a close competition between him, Tiger and Sobers, but the God wins the Tiger.

by Diggers Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:45 pm

Remarkably uninspired by this group for sone reason so I've voted for Tigger primarily to irritate Super as its so tight.

by alfie Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:50 pm

No contest ...has to be Sobers. Though I see he really needed my vote - and needs some more !
Best all round cricketer , ever.
The others are all great in their field , but : Owens (my second choice) dominated , for a fairly short time , one group of similar events in a sport which includes many varied disciplines.
Woods has a great record but is he really clearly superior to several other great golfers ? I am no golf expert but imagine many would still rate Nicklaus as better or at least equal ? Moral indiscretions may or may not weigh also...
Maradonna was a genius. But I wouldn't rate him above Pele , and question his moral code , even within his own game. That QF against England saw both sides of him : a goal of pure footballing perfection , and another through outright cynical cheating...
Like I say , no contest , at least for me.

by McLaren Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:57 pm

Tiger

by mystiroakey Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:30 am

3 players on 19. Shocked

by aucklandlaurie Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:22 am

I could of split them up but I truely respect what Jesse Owens achieved in the circumstances at the time both on and off the track, to vote for Woods, Maradonna or Sobers is just disrespectful.

by mystiroakey Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:27 am

This poll will probally go on all weekend..

So its yet to be decided..

I take it 2 go through again?

by aucklandlaurie Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:32 am

We should drop off the last place getter and have a revote.thats how the Cardinals pick the pope (I saw it last night on CNN).

by mystiroakey Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:38 am

I would be happy with that system Aucks!

Good method

by guildfordbat Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:08 pm

''... evey thing he did, he did in the interests of the game'' - the late Tony Greig discussing Sir Garfield Sobers.

Disappointed by this result but pleased Sobers provided such a good game.

by mystiroakey Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:09 pm

I know you tried Guildford. BUt I couldnt switch from tiger.

by Mad for Chelsea Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:27 am

disappointed to see Owens trailing by so much, for me him and Maradona are clearly the two stand outs of this group, and Owens took it for simply being a much better person. Even more surprised that Woods did so well, a fine golfer in his own right (second best of all time) but shouldn't be anywhere near the final 8 of the competition IMO.

by compelling and rich Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:37 am

very tough even group for me this one, im too late to vote so i can sit on the fence and say ireally dont know who i would have voted for

by Sponsored content

v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4

Re: v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 4