v2 G.O.A.T The Final

First topic message reminder :

After two months of competition, over 2500 votes, over 5500 comments, a voting scandal, a restarted format and the Gavin Hastings situation, the v2 GOAT has come to its climax with the final matchup of the tournament today to decide who the v2 posters will crown their greatest of all time.

Yesterday’s two semi-finals were two of the most closely contested matches of the tournament with football, tennis, cricket and boxing represented in the final four, in match 1 Mohammed Ali took on Don Bradman and with the voting neck and neck for the majority of the day it was eventually the self-proclaimed greatest of all time that took the initiative and became the first entrant to secure his spot in the final. In the second match grand slam champion Roger Federer took on two time world cup winner Pele, in another intriguing battle that was extremely close all day neither man could establish a lead of any note, eventually Federer sealed his spot in the final by just two votes finishing on 44 to Pele’s 42.

Bradman exits the competition defeating Zinedine Zidane, and Harry Greb in round 1, Daley Thompson, Brain Lara and Eddy Merckx in round 2, Sugar Ray Robinson and Usain Bolt in the last 16 , Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods and Michael Johnson in the last 8.

Pele’s scalps include Michael Schumacher, Stephen Hendry, Phil Taylor, Martina Navratilova and Wayne Gretzky.

Today’s final sees a clash of styles, generation and sports as boxing takes on tennis to decide the v2 G.O.A.T

Ali vs. Federer and emancipator vs 6oldenbhoy in the battle of the GOAT champions

Please vote for the v2 G.O.A.T

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

With regard to whether Ali was past his best before or after his exile the views of the two fighters who fought him both before and after (George Chuvalo and Floyd Patterson) are instructive. They were both posed this question in Thomas Hauser’s biography of Ali and both said without hesitation that the pre exile fighter was superior and whilst I cannot remember their exact words they pretty much said the difference was the proverbial country mile.

They basically said as the post exile version had slowed down considerably you could land shots on the man that previously did not get home and obviously that meant you scored against him and also at heavyweight for as long as you can land you have a chance. Said that post exile hitting Ali with anything of note was as close to impossible as it gets in boxing.

Rowley wrote:With regard to whether Ali was past his best before or after his exile the views of the two fighters who fought him both before and after (George Chuvalo and Floyd Patterson) are instructive. They were both posed this question in Thomas Hauser’s biography of Ali and both said without hesitation that the pre exile fighter was superior and whilst I cannot remember their exact words they pretty much said the difference was the proverbial country mile.

They basically said as the post exile version had slowed down considerably you could land shots on the man that previously did not get home and obviously that meant you scored against him and also at heavyweight for as long as you can land you have a chance. Said that post exile hitting Ali with anything of note was as close to impossible as it gets in boxing.

In addition to this he fought practically blind against Liston for a few rounds, a man who could drop you with a casual jab and still went on to win.

milkyboy wrote:You know enough about boxing, to know that that judgement call is fairly universally held by people who know their boxing digs. But have it your own way,we'll shelve the concept of federer being past his best too, and look at those records against his peers a bit more closely. Looks like a flat track bully to me, who cleaned up in a weak era.

To be honest I see the weaknesses in Federer as well, I was saying yesterday that his record against Nadal really cant be just written off as a bad match up.
I guess at the end of the day though Im not that big a fan of the heavies as you are. Most of them are just lumbering oafs with very little skill compared to the lighter weights, Ali was different...but he was still fighting the lumbering oafs.
Also lets face it, the mob never helped Federer win any tennis matches....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkhpZoPOfZI

Diggers wrote:
Also lets face it, the mob never helped Federer win any tennis matches....

Oh come on now, you're just resorting to cliches now, what is next the horse shoe in the glove?

I'm surprised that Federer's fighting spirit and ability to deal with pressure are being questioned here. 2005 Miami TMS final (came back from a perilous and seemingly hopeless situation to beat Nadal), 2006 Australian Open final (all over the place for a set and a half before coming back to win), Wimbledon 2007 final (a brilliant five setter against Nadal again in which he was twice 15-40 down on serve in the fifth set before finding a way to make it five in a row), the 2009 Wimbledon final (another titanic five-setter which went to 16-14 in the decider against Roddick who played without doubt the greatest match of his life and was a superb grass court player in his own right).

He has plenty of performances in which he showed some grit, bottle and fighting spirit to score great wins which looked destined to be defeats. Even last year at Wimbledon he had an absolute 'mare against Benneteu for two sets before winning and, in the final, looked for all the world as if he was going to be two sets down to Murray as well before he picked Murray's pocket with one of the best return games I've ever seen out of nowhere and then ran away with it.

At his best he very often didn't need to go to the trenches and dig in to his very last reserves, but he has shown that he's more than capable of doing so when it's needed.

Union Cane wrote:Federer's record : W 888, L 201

So, on average, he loses one in every five games he plays.


Ali's record : W 56, L 5

Two of those defeats came when he was clearly past it, but even including them Ali has a win rate of 91% compared to Federer's 81%.

The stats don't lie.

Muhammad Ali by a mile.

Surely Freddie Flintoff has a better record than Ali in that case. And Fury!

Rowley wrote:

Diggers wrote:
Also lets face it, the mob never helped Federer win any tennis matches....

Oh come on now, you're just resorting to cliches now, what is next the horse shoe in the glove?

Im not sure a rumour is the same as a cliche. Be honest, when you watch that Liston fight doesnt it look wrong, the baddest man on the planet lying down like a schoolboy.

Diggers wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Diggers wrote:
Also lets face it, the mob never helped Federer win any tennis matches....

Oh come on now, you're just resorting to cliches now, what is next the horse shoe in the glove?

Im not sure a rumour is the same as a cliche. Be honest, when you watch that Liston fight doesnt it look wrong, the baddest man on the planet lying down like a schoolboy.

As it goes I am in the minority in believing the fight was on the level. Not saying Liston was at his imperious best as clearly he wasn't. Also am not just saying this to support Ali in this process, a ttrawl through my posting history will tell you I have written threads on the subject in the past. Anyway enough of this, to my reasons for voting for Ali.

Tough old pairing, am not sure either would have been in my final two but such is democracy in action. Will consider their merits irrespective of this and when I do so the argument I keep being drawn to when I try and make sense of this is Nadal’s record against Federer. For me I cannot quite get with the idea that someone we are going to proclaim the greatest sportsman of all time should have such a poor record against his nearest rival.

Would have no issue if Nadal always gave him hell as the same is true of Norton and Foreman for Ali but the key difference is Ali found a way to finish with winning records against both of these guys. Thus far Roger has not come close to doing similar with Rafa. Realise there are reasons such as the surfaces etc and he has more than enough positive on the ledger to still warrant discussion amongst the greatest of all time but at these rarified levels something like this is enough to split the pair for me. Ali gets my vote.

I'm not sure I'd have put either of these forward as finalists, but given that they're here...

Ali undoubtedly captured (and continues to capture) the public imagination far beyond his sport and to a far greater degree than Federer has (albeit in a different era, when there were fewer competing demands on our attention). However, as a sportsman his case is questionable; boxing afficionados seem pretty consistent in the view that he's not the boxing G.O.A.T. His reputation is based more on the strength of his personality and the highlights of his career.

Federer is not perfect. He is beatable and he doesn't have a great record against the other "big 4" players. But perfection is not how tennis works. It's possible for a very good boxer to go a career unbeaten or with a very good win-loss ratio, because they fight relatively infrequently, opponents are often carefully chosen and even when they aren't a boxer has plenty of time to prepare for a specific opponent, and would go into each fight fully fit.

A tennis player probably plays 8 games a month, and does not know who he will face from game to game. With that kind of schedule, a player will inevitably lose from time to time. They may come up against a fresher opponent or go into a game carrying an injury. They may encounter someone whose game exploits their weaknesses. You can't win 'em all.

What matters is consistency, the ability to string together the 7 wins in a row needed to clinch a title more often than the next guy. Federer has done that more than any other player in the history of the game - despite his career following on directly from Sampras, who would generally be regarded as the previous GOAT.

In Federer's case, that has to be seen in the context of the extraordinary quality of the players he's faced. For most of his career he's been competing against two players in Nadal and Djokovic who in his absence would be realistic contenders for the Tennis GOAT themselves. A third, Andy Murray, is arguably as skilled as the other three but has until recently lacked the last sliver of mental strength to win Grand Slams. It's rare for any sportsman to face that level of opposition over a sustained period of time, and yet over most of that period Federer outclassed them all.

If we're looking for the greatest achiever in sport rather than the greatest sporting personality, then I would say Federer is clearly ahead of Ali.

p.s. And possibly the reason that rugby posters have been quiet on this one is the difficulty of pointing to a GOAT in rugby. The true measure of a team game...

88Chris05 wrote:I'm surprised that Federer's fighting spirit and ability to deal with pressure are being questioned here. 2005 Miami TMS final (came back from a perilous and seemingly hopeless situation to beat Nadal), 2006 Australian Open final (all over the place for a set and a half before coming back to win), Wimbledon 2007 final (a brilliant five setter against Nadal again in which he was twice 15-40 down on serve in the fifth set before finding a way to make it five in a row), the 2009 Wimbledon final (another titanic five-setter which went to 16-14 in the decider against Roddick who played without doubt the greatest match of his life and was a superb grass court player in his own right).

He has plenty of performances in which he showed some grit, bottle and fighting spirit to score great wins which looked destined to be defeats. Even last year at Wimbledon he had an absolute 'mare against Benneteu for two sets before winning and, in the final, looked for all the world as if he was going to be two sets down to Murray as well before he picked Murray's pocket with one of the best return games I've ever seen out of nowhere and then ran away with it.

At his best he very often didn't need to go to the trenches and dig in to his very last reserves, but he has shown that he's more than capable of doing so when it's needed.

He did show it at times. Chris, but you are ignoring the times he didn't. Maybe a few of them are too fresh in the Memory for me

Thing is, Milky, I don't really see many of Federer's defeats in Slam finals / semi finals really being a lack of heart or spirit. The only 'big' match of that nature where I can really remember him clearly throwing the towel in was the 2008 French Open final - I'll admit that Federer's effort in that match once it looked certain he was going 2-0 down in sets was poor.

People point to that amazing 2008 Wimbledon final, but I don't really think Federer folded mentally there. In fact it was an amazing effort to battle back from two sets down (saving two match points along the way) and to even get himself in a position in the fifth where he had a break point which, if he'd have converted it, would have left him serving for the title. Superb mentality considering the mental scars of the tanning Nadal had given him at Roland Garros just four weeks before.

2009 Australian Open final, maybe his nerve went in that fifth set, I concede. Later in that year however I think his loss to Del Potro was just because the Argentine was better on the day, no more no less.

Of course he's been mentally frail now and then, not denying that, but my main point was that his fortitude in that respect has been kind of written off in comparison to Ali's as a blanket statement, which I'd disagree with.

You could compare Federer Nadal to Ali Norton. Norton wasnt that great but he was bad match up for Ali for some reason. Of course the difference would be that Nadal is a great in his own right, and the greatest on ever on clay.
And should Ali have lost to Spinks, doesnt the fact he could avenge it mean he should have won in the first place, same with Norton ?

Federer, no question in my mind at all.

He was an old man years past his best by the time he lost to Spinks.

He was 36, hardly old in heavyweight terms, and he still had enough to beat him because he did the next time they fought when he was older still.
So he lost to a guy he could still beat as he proved, in my book that makes it a perfectly legitimate loss. Kudos for avenging the loss, but we can't just ignore it as part of his career.

It's not that simple, he was quite clearly past his best regardless of age, at the time he was the second oldest champion so yes he was fairly ancient.

It really is that simple, he should have beaten him and he didnt.

Both Top 16'ers no doubt!


Can't believe that I've seen no mention of Henry Cooper in these debates (may be there, just haven't see it). Let's face it, if it wasn't for highly questionable intervention by the referee and Ali's corner, he'd never have made it out of Wembley undefeated.

And: Would the Ali legend have been so great if it wasn't for the universal unpopularity of the Vietnam War?

Having said that, he was a genius in the ring, even if all he's known for the last twenty-plus years is being a celebrity and not a fighter.

The Cooper thing is something of an over exaggerated thing (largely perpetuated by Henry himself it should be added). If you listen to the oft repeated myths Dundee’s intervention bought Ali minutes. Our late lamented Windy was old enough to have been around when the fight happened and watched or listened to it live and maintained that in truth Dundee’s intervention bought Ali all of about seven seconds of extra time. In real terms this is nothing and is the sort of additional breather corners regularly buy their fighters by being slow putting a gumshield back in or removing the stool from the ring.

Accepted it was a silly shot Ali had no business getting caught with but the idea Dundee’s shenanigans bought Ali tons of additional time and saved him from certain believe is almost certainly an urban myth.

It's a very naive view and being able to beat someone doesn't mean you're anywhere your best, the Foreman fight realistically finished him. That he was still able to compete is testament to his ability. It's no different to Federer losing to Berdych or the countless other less than stellar players.

Rowley,
I'm often lamented but seldom late. And I remember it very distinctly also.

The fact that Ali was held up by the ropes, was given smelling salts and was allowed to change his gloves is indisputable, surely. All in one minute? I doubt it.

All in the game, no doubt, but nevertheless a blot on the memory, if not on his record.

Ali was a bit lucky against Cooper in some ways, but the split glove thing isn't really the reason why for me. Obviously there's a bit of debate how or if the footage of the fight was edited (though general consensus is that it was, as Rowley says, something like six or seven seconds and that rumours of the footage being changed to make the delay seem shorter than ringsiders said it was is probably fanciful), but to me Ali's luck came in the fact that the knockdown came right at the end of the round.

Ali was still heavily dazed and a bit unsteady when he got up and you have to wonder how it might have played out if Cooper had got to him a bit earlier in the round and had a bit more time to go in for the kill. Instead, the bell went before he got the chance to throw another punch.

But alas, that's life and, sadly, you just have to take that bad luck (in Cooper's case) on the chin sometimes. Fortune probably favoured Ali a little bit on that night but the right man won the fight, ultimately.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It's a very naive view and being able to beat someone doesn't mean you're anywhere your best, the Foreman fight realistically finished him. That he was still able to compete is testament to his ability. It's no different to Federer losing to Berdych or the countless other less than stellar players.

Think you are missing the point, he still had enough to beat Spinx and he didnt. Seems to me we are being told to dismiss this loss as he was shot, but he wasnt shot enough that he couldnt beat him next time out.

Chris,
That's daft, How can you say the right man won the fight, ultimately, when Clay was wide-eyed and legless via a strong punch whereas Cooper was done in by skin that parted more quickly than Paris Hilton's legs?

Very selective judgement there, I would say.

Diggers wrote:Seems to me we are being told to dismiss this loss as he was shot, but he wasnt shot enough that he couldnt beat him next time out.

In all fairness he probably was too shot to beat Spinks second time round had it not been for the fact Spinks chose to do his training for the second Ali fight in bars, strip clubs and nightclubs.

Trying to justify who is better by comparing statistics from boxing and tennis is frankly ludicrous. You just have to go with what you feel. For me the answer is Federer.

Johnyjeep wrote:Trying to justify who is better by comparing statistics from boxing and tennis is frankly ludicrous. You just have to go with what you feel. For me the answer is Federer.

I agree. Apples and Oranges.

kwinigolfer wrote:Chris,
That's daft, How can you say the right man won the fight, ultimately, when Clay was wide-eyed and legless via a strong punch whereas Cooper was done in by skin that parted more quickly than Paris Hilton's legs?

Very selective judgement there, I would say.

Nothing selective about it at all. For almost every moment of that fight aside from Cooper's big left hook, Ali was on top and in control. So what if Cooper was vulnerable around the eyebrows? It was still Ali's stinging shots which made them open up that night, and he landed so frequently because he was the better fighter.

He (Ali) was wide-eyed and unstable after being decked, I agree. But at the end of the day, a round lasts for three minutes and if Cooper only got to him with his money punch two minutes and fifty-nine seconds in to a round, then oh well, tough luck and Cooper can't really complain that Ali could recuperate without having to take or avoid another punch for over a minute, even if it was slighly unfortunate for him.

As soon as the action had resumed after the break between rounds, Ali quickly stamped his authority back on it and was again dominating 'Enry before the referee finally had to call a halt with Cooper's face drenched in his own blood. Cooper had Ali down but, crucially, not for the ten count and, although we can speculate, there's no guarantee that Cooper would have forced the stoppage had he had some extra time in the round to do so, although it does leave you wondering.

kwinigolfer wrote:Chris,
That's daft, How can you say the right man won the fight, ultimately, when Clay was wide-eyed and legless via a strong punch whereas Cooper was done in by skin that parted more quickly than Paris Hilton's legs?
Very selective judgement there, I would say.

Caused by being punched repeatedly in the face.

Rowley wrote:

Diggers wrote:Seems to me we are being told to dismiss this loss as he was shot, but he wasnt shot enough that he couldnt beat him next time out.

In all fairness he probably was too shot to beat Spinks second time round had it not been for the fact Spinks chose to do his training for the second Ali fight in bars, strip clubs and nightclubs.

Well I dont mind wiping the loss off if we can wipe the win off as well.

Diggers wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Diggers wrote:Seems to me we are being told to dismiss this loss as he was shot, but he wasnt shot enough that he couldnt beat him next time out.

In all fairness he probably was too shot to beat Spinks second time round had it not been for the fact Spinks chose to do his training for the second Ali fight in bars, strip clubs and nightclubs.

Well I dont mind wiping the loss off if we can wipe the win off as well.

I don't think anyone with any sense would use the Spinks win to underline Ali's greatness, so feel free.

You can't just gloss over the fact that Federer loses 20% of his matches though, surely?

Ali's Olympic Gold must count in his favour as well.

Is there no way to illustrate your point via the medium of reverse linear union?

superflyweight wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Diggers wrote:Seems to me we are being told to dismiss this loss as he was shot, but he wasnt shot enough that he couldnt beat him next time out.

In all fairness he probably was too shot to beat Spinks second time round had it not been for the fact Spinks chose to do his training for the second Ali fight in bars, strip clubs and nightclubs.

Well I dont mind wiping the loss off if we can wipe the win off as well.

I don't think anyone with any sense would use the Spinks win to underline Ali's greatness, so feel free.

Two time heavyweight champion doesnt sound quite as impressive as 3 time.

Fed has an olympic gold&silver too.

Ali.

Although I believe it is Bradman

The gold that Fed won was in Doubles btw.

sirbenson wrote:Fed has an olympic gold&silver too.

The gold is for doubles, though. Does doubles count?

And you don't win silver medals, so that is irrelevant.

Rowley wrote:Is there no way to illustrate your point via the medium of reverse linear union?

Probably not, I might give it a go though.

Watch this space...

Started out Pele was GOAT in my mind. Still is. Started out with Pele - Ali final in my mind. Therefore, Ali should get my vote.

Not any more.

I've gone Federer. GOAT needs supreme skill and athleticism. Can't split them on athleticism (both supreme examples of specific fitness for their own sport) but the skill of control of an extraneous object (ball etc) outweighs the pure physical skill involved in boxing (to me).

Outside sport it's Ali all the way. Most famous, better legacy (possibly unfair on the still competing Federer, but nonetheless better IMO), more entertaining, more influential on those outside their own sport.

IMO Federer's achievements in his sport outweigh those of Ali in his and from the criteria asked to vote on it's Federer.

Or Gavin Hastings.

Union Cane wrote:You can't just gloss over the fact that Federer loses 20% of his matches though, surely?

Ali's Olympic Gold must count in his favour as well.

You'd have to look at recent years of tennis stats to see what the win/loss ratio across the mens game.
I haven't done it, but I imagine that Fed is pretty close to having the best Win/Loss ratio.

The fact that Ali has a different one is irrelevant.

Union Cane wrote:

Rowley wrote:Is there no way to illustrate your point via the medium of reverse linear union?

Probably not, I might give it a go though.

Watch this space...

Ali was so quick that when the fedex man came to deliver he actually managed to catch the Bar Steward before the guy could run away.

Diggers wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Diggers wrote:Seems to me we are being told to dismiss this loss as he was shot, but he wasnt shot enough that he couldnt beat him next time out.

In all fairness he probably was too shot to beat Spinks second time round had it not been for the fact Spinks chose to do his training for the second Ali fight in bars, strip clubs and nightclubs.

Well I dont mind wiping the loss off if we can wipe the win off as well.

I don't think anyone with any sense would use the Spinks win to underline Ali's greatness, so feel free.

Two time heavyweight champion doesnt sound quite as impressive as 3 time.

Yeah, take off that win against Spinks and Ali's achievements are matched by John Ruiz!

Personally think that anything post Manilla is pretty much meaningless when assessing Ali as that final victory over Frazier had already cemented his place as the greatest heavyweight of all time.

Voted Ali. Not my personal GOAT but he is the best ever in the most prestigious weight division. Aside from that, an incredible personality who has left a legacy that still resonates today.

Federer is an amazing Tennis player but has made no impact outside of his sport and is as dull as they come.

a word on the win-loss ratio if I may?

one has to remember that in tennis, when you start out in the pros you lose a lot of matches early on. This is only logical as you're not the finished article yet (Federer famously had temper problems in his early years for instance) and are playing guys who have been around longer and are better players.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not boxers (or those who it is thought could become something) eased into the professional arena? their first few fights generally aren't all that difficult? I'm pretty sure "padded records" are a regular complaint on the boxing board, though maybe they were less so with Ali.

For instance Federer's worst year since he became the dominant player in 03 was 2008 (where his fans will tell you he was badly affected by mono anyway, but that's besides the point). His record that year was 66-15 which is still better than an 80% win percentage. The fact is, your career ratio in tennis is very much affected by your early years on the tour (where since you're losing earlier in tournaments you're also playing more tournaments, thus more losses as well). Federer's prime years (usually) considered to be 03 to 07 give him a record of 403-41 which is remarkable.

Don't being a three time world champion is any more impressive than being a two time one, he was without a shadow of a doubt the best heavyweight of his era, of any era.

Looks like Federer is going to get seriously hurt. MtotheC should consider stepping in and stopping the contest now.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:a word on the win-loss ratio if I may?

one has to remember that in tennis, when you start out in the pros you lose a lot of matches early on. This is only logical as you're not the finished article yet (Federer famously had temper problems in his early years for instance) and are playing guys who have been around longer and are better players.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not boxers (or those who it is thought could become something) eased into the professional arena? their first few fights generally aren't all that difficult? I'm pretty sure "padded records" are a regular complaint on the boxing board, though maybe they were less so with Ali.

For instance Federer's worst year since he became the dominant player in 03 was 2008 (where his fans will tell you he was badly affected by mono anyway, but that's besides the point). His record that year was 66-15 which is still better than an 80% win percentage. The fact is, your career ratio in tennis is very much affected by your early years on the tour (where since you're losing earlier in tournaments you're also playing more tournaments, thus more losses as well). Federer's prime years (usually) considered to be 03 to 07 give him a record of 403-41 which is remarkable.

Superbly made point.....about how the win loss ratio is affected by the start of your career.

If you look at Fed (I don't like the smug man) win/loss record by year it makes much more sense.