v2 G.O.A.T The Last 16 Group 3

First topic message reminder :

The first half of the v2 GOAT last 16 kicked off with a bang yesterday with two blockbuster superstar laden groups. The first of which pitted Roger Federer, Sugar Ray Robinson, Usain Bolt and Don Bradman to battle it out for just two spots in the final 8. Those two spots were eventually taken by Federer with 33 votes and Bradman ten behind with 23, despite strong support from the boxing board SRR exits the tournament along with Bolt.

The second of yesterday’s groups was a tight affair with Pele the outright winner with 33 votes, the battle in this group though was for second place with Gretzky, Johnson and Nicklaus all winning an equal share of votes throughout the day. It was eventually too tight to call between Nicklaus and Johnson who tied on 14 votes each and both progress into the next round, Gretzky however finished on 11, three votes short and exits the competition at this stage.

The second half of the last 16 kicks off today with another two blockbuster groups, the first of which see’s stars from basketball, rowing, swimming and boxing.

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

Please leave a comment as to why you voted..

You see Mysti Id go the other way. The talent pool for heavyweights is pretty small and not that many heavies are actually great boxers in terms of speed and skill, far more class on show from middleweight down.

I agree that skill level is a point..

But shouldnt the GOAT of boxing be able to win against anyone.

Shouldnt it be that simple?

mystiroakey wrote:I agree that skill level is a point..

But shouldnt the GOAT of boxing be able to win against anyone.

Shouldnt it be that simple?

That's kinda like my women vs men argument, when I was debating Tennis GOAT's. Not sure where I'm at with that one now?

Well i think this comp should have just been men and then we could have had a seperate one for women.

Boxing is the only sport represented in this comp from a 'handicapped' or division sport.

It throws up this clear issue.

Most sports are about getting the best and the best only to compete.

then we have boxing and weightlighting that has divisions.. We dont judge others pound to pound because there is no reason to. Its all about the best- however you get there

But the heavyweight division does have a lower limit nowadays of 200lbs which in itself doesn't make it scratch.

Imp it has a lower limit yes- but does that realistically matter. Anyone wanting to be a heavyweight could hit the limit surely and would certainly want to!!

Barry McGuigan Heavyweight Champion? Come on Oakey.

Why should they have to if it means piling on the pounds just to reach a minimum limit?

Boxing has weight limits because it would be a massive health risk if it did not, how many other sports are there that have a genuine risk of one competitor killing the other?

The heavyweight title has always been the most prestigious, richest, most famous etc and in athletics , the sprints the blue Riband track events (much as we used to claim that for the 1500, when we were good at it.) To me bolt trumps Johnson for example because I suspect if Johnson was quick enough over 100, he would have run it.

It's the biggest strongest fastest etc maxim.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why should they have to if it means piling on the pounds just to reach a minimum limit?

Boxing has weight limits because it would be a massive health risk if it did not, how many other sports are there that have a genuine risk of one competitor killing the other?

its health and safety isnt it.

However the fact is we are trying to judge a goat sportsman.. The logical choice(IMO) for a boxing conteder is one that could beat all comers- whatever the size

Common sense Oakey.

Does that not in itself count someone like Phelps out who is not the fastest swimmer but the fastest of the niche events?

Bolt trumps Johnson because he's done the double treble, as an achievement I think 200/400 double is the harder of the two.

mystiroakey wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why should they have to if it means piling on the pounds just to reach a minimum limit?

Boxing has weight limits because it would be a massive health risk if it did not, how many other sports are there that have a genuine risk of one competitor killing the other?

its health and safety isnt it.

However the fact is we are trying to judge a goat sportsman.. The logical choice(IMO) for a boxing conteder is one that could beat all comers- whatever the size

Not really in a sport where health and safety is of more of a concern than any other, size plays a massive part in boxing which it doesn't in say football, compare the stature of the two best players in the world right now.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Does that not in itself count someone like Phelps out who is not the fastest swimmer but the fastest of the niche events?

Bolt trumps Johnson because he's done the double treble, as an achievement I think 200/400 double is the harder of the two.

true- for me it should be about the fastest freestyler.

I admit that I actually thought he was!

mystiroakey wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why should they have to if it means piling on the pounds just to reach a minimum limit?

Boxing has weight limits because it would be a massive health risk if it did not, how many other sports are there that have a genuine risk of one competitor killing the other?

its health and safety isnt it.

However the fact is we are trying to judge a goat sportsman.. The logical choice(IMO) for a boxing conteder is one that could beat all comers- whatever the size

So, Frank Bruno over Floyd Mayweather as the boxing GOAT?

Stella wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why should they have to if it means piling on the pounds just to reach a minimum limit?

Boxing has weight limits because it would be a massive health risk if it did not, how many other sports are there that have a genuine risk of one competitor killing the other?

its health and safety isnt it.

However the fact is we are trying to judge a goat sportsman.. The logical choice(IMO) for a boxing conteder is one that could beat all comers- whatever the size

So, Frank Bruno over Floyd Mayweather as the boxing GOAT?

yep.. sadly yes for me

Nothing wrong with a pound for pound comparison btw stella. But not when it comes to using the GOAT boxers competing across all sports

To some degree yes in my view, ghosty. 100 freestyle is swimming's glamour event.

I guess we all apply our own value system in this, and many different perspectives have their own merit.

Arguing that Redgrave only won 5 golds because he was part of a team is pretty spurious. He competed in a team sport. In fact, he was part of several teams - with Holmes, with Beresford, with Pinsent, and then with Pinsent, Foster and Cracknell.

Redgrave was the common factor in all of those. He won when rowing had funding and excellent coaches. He won when it had next to nothing. He won when the British Olympic team as a whole was strong. He won when it was poor (he and Pinsent were the only British Gold in Atlanta).

If you're going to discount him for being part of a team and having a partner who matched him physically (but not, ultimately, in commitment and dedication), then don't you also have to discount all team players?

mystiroakey wrote:Nothing wrong with a pound for pound comparison btw stella. But not when it comes to using the GOAT boxers competing across all
sports

Difficult one. I can see and agree to an extent with you but on the other hand, it's hard to rule out someone on size and strength.

In weightlifting (Suleymanoglu should have been included in this) I would consider the stronger man the one who can lift a higher proportion to his own body weight and it's the same with boxing, the one who can dominate those of his own size with skill should rank higher than those based purely on size.

pound for pound is a fine view to take I suppose.

But the bigger problem in regards to boxing is that its impossible to match pound for pound with any true accuracy with boxers from different divisions.

Its just about beating an opponent

Poorfour wrote:Arguing that Redgrave only won 5 golds because he was part of a team is pretty spurious. He competed in a team sport. In fact, he was part of several teams - with Holmes, with Beresford, with Pinsent, and then with Pinsent, Foster and Cracknell.

Redgrave was the common factor in all of those. He won when rowing had funding and excellent coaches. He won when it had next to nothing. He won when the British Olympic team as a whole was strong. He won when it was poor (he and Pinsent were the only British Gold in Atlanta).

If you're going to discount him for being part of a team and having a partner who matched him physically (but not, ultimately, in commitment and dedication), then don't you also have to discount all team players?

Ive said that you have to take the team element into account for the likes of Pele. That said footballers do act as individuals with different skill on a pitch, in a boat you have 2, 4 or 8 guys doing the same thing. I can see an act of individual brilliance by Messi or Bradman, I cant from Redgrave.
I also said Im looking at it from an Olympic sense. Id always rate individual performances at the Olympics over a team event, Id always rate an athletics individual win over a relay win.
Thats just me, but I think the argumenst are valid not spurious.

That's a very simplistic view of rowing, while they look like they're all doing the same thing they in fact are not and a team is only as strong as it's weakest member.

Stella wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Nothing wrong with a pound for pound comparison btw stella. But not when it comes to using the GOAT boxers competing across all
sports

Difficult one. I can see and agree to an extent with you but on the other hand, it's hard to rule out someone on size and strength.

Unfortunately that's sport though. You're ruled out of basketball if you're not a giant, out of football if you have big feet and out of swimming if you have small feet etc

Peter Crouch has big feet, but I see your point as well. Don't see many 5'5" rowers either.

Stella wrote:Peter Crouch has big feet, but I see your point as well. Don't see many 5'5" rowers either.

If Peter crouch is the best you can do I rest my case. Seriously though, he had decent control and rubbish in the air for a bean pole with big feet.

In the lightweight classes you'll probably have some shorter guys though Stella.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:That's a very simplistic view of rowing, while they look like they're all doing the same thing they in fact are not and a team is only as strong as it's weakest member.

They basically do the same thing , certainly not comparable to the different skill sets in football or cricket.

Depends what you favour, I prefer an endurance athlete to say a footballer or cricketer but accept i'm very much in the minority there. For instance Wiggins has achieved a darn sight more than most on the 64 but by being neither the greatest road cyclist or track cyclist wouldn't be considered.

Stella wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Why should they have to if it means piling on the pounds just to reach a minimum limit?

Boxing has weight limits because it would be a massive health risk if it did not, how many other sports are there that have a genuine risk of one competitor killing the other?

its health and safety isnt it.

However the fact is we are trying to judge a goat sportsman.. The logical choice(IMO) for a boxing conteder is one that could beat all comers- whatever the size

So, Frank Bruno over Floyd Mayweather as the boxing GOAT?

Mayweather would murder Bruno.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Depends what you favour, I prefer an endurance athlete to say a footballer or cricketer but accept i'm very much in the minority there. For instance Wiggins has achieved a darn sight more than most on the 64 but by being neither the greatest road cyclist or track cyclist wouldn't be considered.

If you tag Wiggins achievements together its a fair old career. But Id always have achievements on the road as a much bigger deal than on the track and Im not sure where Wiggins would rate in the all time list of road racers.

With Wiggins he is the only track champion to have gone on to win the tour de france and then followed it up with time trial gold. As far as the 4k pursuit goes he's probably the number of all time, seemingly unbeatable when it mattered.

Torn between Ali and Redgrave, but Redgrave it is.

Phelps undoubedly the king followed by Ali.

Phelps

Redgrave is ahead of Michael Jordan. What a joke. Most SHers would never have heard of Redgrave....the same ones are wearing Jordans Air Nikes.

In fairness Tayorman, most people in the Northern Hemisphere wouldnt have a clue who Colin Meads or Dan Carter are either.

Yes but I wouldnt put either anywhere near the likes of Jordan- in fact no Kiwi would be in that league...but even I can admit that.

Basketball


I know people say New Zealand is like England in the 1950's but still wearing air jordans in 2013 is taking things a bit far.

Taylorman wrote:Redgrave is ahead of Michael Jordan. What a joke. Most SHers would never have heard of Redgrave....the same ones are wearing Jordans Air Nikes.

agreed, it is a joke. Jordan should be leading this comfortably

voted for Ali. Not the greatest boxer but transcended his sport like no other sportsman has ever done in the history of sport (so far) IMVHO. Would have been between Phelps and Jordan for my second choice, but I suspect Jordan is suffering from a knock-back of the Hans effect. Shame as he is a genuine great and would make my top 10 most days (not sure about top 8). As I said though, an easy choice from this group.

ali all day for me, he's not called the greatest for nothing. best ever heavyweight boxer during the sports golden era at the weight. p4p is all well and good but there is no way to prove any of it. the smaller fighters may well have better speed and technique but the bigger guys make up for with it with a lot more power. ali was lighting quick for a heavy, imagine if you scaled him down.

at the end of the day ali is the best boxer to lace the gloves up as he's the biggest and best. i dont see xavi and yaya toure getting judged separately even though yaya has many physical advantages. the giant west indian bowlers are judged the same as the smaller Asian counter parts.

SRR is regarded as the best boxer p4p, which is perfectly true when just considering boxing achievements. but when we are considering different sports across many different platforms and the world wide impact they have made then ali takes it for me, i doubt there is a sports fan anywhere in the world who wouldn't know who ali is, i doubt that would be the case with many of the others in this competition