Jump to content

BBC Sports Personality of the Year


Hatch

Recommended Posts

About half way through the year, who are the main contenders so far.

 

Button? Still needs to win world title

 

Flintoff ? - not on just one good days cricket

 

Murray ? would have to win US open

 

and now I'm struggling to think of any others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it depends entirely on if we win the Ashes or not. If we do it'll be one of them. If not, I expect it'll be either Button or Murray.

 

I agree but if Flintoff were injured again would say Strauss receive the vote or not regardless of his performance as he is not seen as an all conquering hero ? Maybe as he is team captain but I'm not convinced and can anyone really see Cook, Bopara, Prior, Collingwood, Swann, Broad, Anderson or any other player aside from Flintoff and Strauss winning? In fact I'd say Charlotte Edwards is more likely to win or finish at least in the top 3.

Lots still to come off course including the World Athletics Championship though it would take something very special for an athlete to win it and probably the only like candidate would be Jessica Ennis who could conceivably win both the heptathlon and the 100 metres hurdles, an event in which she is world class. If Haye beats Nikolai Valuev who apparently is the tallest heavyweight world champion of all time he would get my vote regardless of what else happens. 80/1 at Paddy Power appeals to me especially as voting I imagine will start soon after the fight which is in November.

Button is far more likely than Murray but at around 2/1 and 5/1 respectively those odds seem way too short.

Otherwise Theo Walcott at 999/1 anyone ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark cavendish should be in with a shout

 

He should be, but Cycling, out of an Olympic year, is too minority a sport. Shame, as he deserved an Olympic medal and didn't get one, and he will be deprived of this recognition too.

 

What is it, a GB record 9 Tour De France stage wins now..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullied at school.

 

its nailed on really i spose, but his sport is over quicker than Chrisobee in the sack, alledgedly

A lot has been made of that in the last fw days here in Plymouth

 

He (apparenly) got loads of grief at school for his poor effot in the olympics (despite beng 14 years old) and his parents had to put him in another school..

 

the front page of the Herald here had the other day..

 

"world Champion 1

Bullies 0"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, it has to be Mark Cavendish. Bradley Wiggins should get a mention for 4th in GC at Le Tour, but to add to 6 stage wins in Le Tour, Cav has won a lot of other races including Milan-San Remo.

 

Froch as well, and he will have another fight this year.

 

Button, if he wins the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd vote for Cavendish.

 

As much as I enjoyed his 12th round demolition of Jermaine Taylor, Carl Froch isn't well known enough with the general public to win. Same with Haye which is weird. Maybe if he'd have fought and beaten a Kiltchko he would be.

 

If we win the Ashes and he plays well in every game it'll be Flintoff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

phil Taylor

 

stats speak for themselves

 

but many dont view it as a sport

 

Well as I said elsewhere many are just playing with semantics and many are wrong since any dictionary I know of will define sport along these lines:

 

 

1

a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.

b. A particular form of this activity.

2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.

3. An active pastime; recreation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor is still on for winning all the ranking events this year.

 

He has done: World Championships, UK Open, Las Vegas Desert Classic & World Matchplay. Just the World Grand Prix to go, and that is a clean sweep of the "majors".

 

Add to that he broke the world record 3-dart average for a televised game (116.01 in the PL vs John Part) and is regularly averaging 100+ and even 105+.

 

However, the BBC won't even mention him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor is still on for winning all the ranking events this year.

 

He has done: World Championships, UK Open, Las Vegas Desert Classic & World Matchplay. Just the World Grand Prix to go, and that is a clean sweep of the "majors".

 

Add to that he broke the world record 3-dart average for a televised game (116.01 in the PL vs John Part) and is regularly averaging 100+ and even 105+.

 

However, the BBC won't even mention him.

 

Yes, which is a disgrace. He demolished the field in the World Matchplay last week but is still not satisfied and is heading straight back to the practice board. He's won an incredible 130+ (including 75 major tournaments) professional tournaments, no one else comes close.

These are the highest 3 dart averages in TV history:

 

116.01 Phil Taylor 8-3 John Part, PL 2009

115.62 Phil Taylor 10-0 Mark Lawrence,UK Open

115.51 Phil Taylor 9-3 Ken Mather, UK Open 2009

114.54 Phil Taylor 9-3 Wes Newton, UK Open 2008

114.15 Darryl Fitton 6-0 Davy Richardson, IDL 2004

113.92 Phil Taylor 9-3 Mervyn King, EDC 2008

113.43 Phil Taylor 8-0 Gary Mawson, Matchplay 1997

113.33 Phil Taylor 11-7 Robert Thornton, EDC 2008

112.68 Phil Taylor 11-1 Adrian Lewis, PL 2008

112.56 Chris Mason 11-8 Adrian Lewis, UK Open 2005

112.17 Phil Taylor 16-7 Chris Mason, World Matchplay

111.74 Phil Taylor 8-3 John Part, PL 2008

111.35 Phil Taylor 3-0 Dennis Priestley, US Open 2008

111.21 Phil Taylor 6-1 Shayne Burgess, PDC WC 2002

111.14 Phil Taylor 8-3 Raymond van Barneveld, PL 2008

111.03 James Wade 5-3 Denis Ovens, GSOD 2008

110.94 Phil Taylor 7-1 Raymond van Barneveld, PDC WC 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taylor is still on for winning all the ranking events this year.

 

He has done: World Championships, UK Open, Las Vegas Desert Classic & World Matchplay. Just the World Grand Prix to go, and that is a clean sweep of the "majors".

 

Add to that he broke the world record 3-dart average for a televised game (116.01 in the PL vs John Part) and is regularly averaging 100+ and even 105+.

 

However, the BBC won't even mention him.

 

that is a joke...Phil Taylor is ace and has a cult following..as does darts in general these days..

 

not my cuppa tea but can see how going to an event would be a brilliant exerience

 

hate to say it (i know it is not fashionable)

SKY have helped this IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with Taylor is that Sky also happen to be one of his sponsors, so hardly anyone else gets a proper mention.

 

Yes, he's the best by a country mile (although there are far more players these days who could beat him on their day), but the saturation coverage and the way the likes of Sid Waddell **** furiously over him when he hits a bog-standard 100 does get bloody irritating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you tried their hobbies and pastimes section - rather than sports?

 

Actually he does get a mention on that link, the "not" being a typo. Which is what you would expect anyway since Darts is patently a sport as per post 23 but in any event to call it anything else is just playing with words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with Taylor is that Sky also happen to be one of his sponsors, so hardly anyone else gets a proper mention.

 

Yes, he's the best by a country mile (although there are far more players these days who could beat him on their day), but the saturation coverage and the way the likes of Sid Waddell **** furiously over him when he hits a bog-standard 100 does get bloody irritating.

 

 

Not sure I agree, I certainly don't get the point. Sky do cover all the main PDC events and show every game of every player. It just so happens that Taylor is involved in more games than anyone as he keeps winning !

I agree to a point that Sid Waddell is a bit OTT at times but in his book a Taylor 100 is usually classed as poor so that comment is just plain wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will, he stopped competing in the early 90's.

 

I know he was an incredible sportsperson, with a hugely impressive career - but it's a long time ago. I'm glad you validate his feats by even bothering to factor him in to your thinking, if only to reject him. I never knew you cared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Think you'll find" - based on what? Your ignorance? Listen mate, golfing as a career doesn't mean you're a rocket scientist. I have nothing to base any assumptions about your intelligence on other than your retarded ramblings on here. Even if this was taken seriously, which frankly I don't, your arguments have been facile, verging on the irrational - not to mention ill-informed and self contradictory. There's nothing to suggest you're in any way clever, and I would suggest that from the evidence thus far, I would have an easy win on points. You even do the classic 'thick person' thing in holding on to baseless ideas - like my age. You have *no* basis to guess my age at all, and you're certainly well wrong. You useless p1ss-stain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Think you'll find" - based on what? Your ignorance? Listen mate, golfing as a career doesn't mean you're a rocket scientist. I have nothing to base any assumptions about your intelligence on other than your retarded ramblings on here. Even if this was taken seriously, which frankly I don't, your arguments have been facile, verging on the irrational - not to mention ill-informed and self contradictory. There's nothing to suggest you're in any way clever, and I would suggest that from the evidence thus far, I would have an easy win on points. You even do the classic 'thick person' thing in holding on to baseless ideas - like my age. You have *no* basis to guess my age at all, and you're certainly well wrong. You useless p1ss-stain.

 

No, here's why you're unintelligent. Firstly you say golf isn't a sport. Idiot. Then you call me very childish names, like bellend and p1ss stain, amongst others. And saying Tiger is my bum chum - almost forgot that one. Very much the behaviour of an intellectual adult that is, isn't it?!

 

The basis I have on your age is that as a retired sportsman, you'll more than likely be in your 30's, at the very least. Maybe double my age was a little far fetched, but no matter - if you're 5, 10, 15 or more years older, at any age, your pathetic, childish behaviour in your posts show you up to be very stupid, not very mature, and god help us all if you have kids. Cuz if you're at the helm of a family, no doubt they'll be the next generation of chavs to grace St Mary's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I peaked early.

 

As for the insults, it's too easy. It's just quite enjoyable mocking you, because, while I wouldn't say I know it for a fact, you do present as some sort of midget, intellectually. Also, I think you'll find that it is far more immature to deny yourself guilty pleasures in the name of humour. That ol' intellectual institution, seen by your ilk, probably, as for old people - radio 4 - is in fact full of willy jokes... Your assertions about my class and so on are no better. You're not above insulting others anyway, who cares about the language used? I could use all sorts of other, more supposedly high-brow words to describe you, but hey, I have to consider the target audience, eh?

 

Finally, you're a pompous moron with an inflated sense of worth, importance and apparently intelligence. If that doesn't give someone full license to laugh in your face, what does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if this was taken seriously, which frankly I don't, your arguments have been facile, verging on the irrational - not to mention ill-informed and self contradictory.

 

Oh and please feel free to point me towards things I've said that are self contradictory!! I know contradictory is a big word and was maybe one of the few you knew that you could find a way to use against me, but at least pick one that is actually relevant!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, that's brilliant. That's a top notch argument, cunningly constructed. Are you 15? I mean, who actually uses that as a retort? It's like kicking a puppy. You did contradict yourself, one example being when you said people shouldn't judge sports they didn't know about - yet you have consistently done the same. Dullard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I peaked early.

 

As for the insults, it's too easy. It's just quite enjoyable mocking you, because, while I wouldn't say I know it for a fact, you do present as some sort of midget, intellectually. Also, I think you'll find that it is far more immature to deny yourself guilty pleasures in the name of humour. That ol' intellectual institution, seen by your ilk, probably, as for old people - radio 4 - is in fact full of willy jokes... Your assertions about my class and so on are no better. You're not above insulting others anyway, who cares about the language used? I could use all sorts of other, more supposedly high-brow words to describe you, but hey, I have to consider the target audience, eh?

 

Finally, you're a pompous moron with an inflated sense of worth, importance and apparently intelligence. If that doesn't give someone full license to laugh in your face, what does?

 

I know, what an idiot I am. Suggesting that the most dominant sportsman of today, along with Federer, is in fact, the most dominant sportsman today. What a lack of intellect I've been showing!! And yes, because I actually can back up my argument with facts and figures, I'm full of myself and I feel more important than I truly am. Maybe I should have argued my point by saying "he's the best sportsman ever cuz he did things that nobody has ever heard about and also I don't have any facts and figures to give to you other than he's the bestest cuz I do his sport and it's real tough", like you argued your point. Maybe then my opinion would have been more accepted!!

 

If only I had thought more carefully. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, that's brilliant. That's a top notch argument, cunningly constructed. Are you 15? I mean, who actually uses that as a retort? It's like kicking a puppy. You did contradict yourself, one example being when you said people shouldn't judge sports they didn't know about - yet you have consistently done the same. Dullard.

 

At what point did I say that? I didn't say people shouldn't judge sports they didn't know about whatsoever!! What I DID say was that you were wrong, golf IS a sport, and then I gave you reasons why it was. I also did NOT judge kajaking. I didn't doubt the credibility of the sport, you chose to think I did. I doubted the greatness of this Fox fellow in the world of sport as a whole, but I didn't say kayaking is sh1t, kayaking isn't a sport, you must be X and Y because you're a kayaker. If you're going to accuse me of something, at least accuse me of something that is true. That is all I ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IT'S BLOODY SUBJECTIVE, YOU TOTAL IDIOT.

 

You've only backed up anything with facts and figures you claim are indisputable proof of being the best sportsperson - that, once more, is down to opinion. Why can't you grasp that? Why have you read nothing else in that thread? Of course they are dominant sportspeople at present within their sports, but that in NO WAY proves these are the greatest ever. Do you not understand the other factors that go into sport - that can affect peoples lives - that go into assessing these things? It's simply impossible to make direct comparisons with ever sports person ever, so anyone with even one iota of common sense would acknowledge this fact. Apparently you haven't read any of my posts, WITH facts and some figures, because you once more seem blind to them. What's the point in arguing with an automoton of views? I accept Woods is the 'best' golfer around right now, which is a whole lot more than you've done. It's like argumens about politics on this board - the thick posters just cling on to one single thing and keep beating everyone over the head with it, without apparently being able to reason, consider, reflect - what's the sodding point? You clearly the the cognitive tools with which to take anything into account other than your one, biased, isolated view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...