Jump to content

BBC Sports Personality of the Year


Hatch

Recommended Posts

Do you not understand the other factors that go into sport - that can affect peoples lives - that go into assessing these things?

 

Before I leave though I must argue this point. Tiger came from a poor background, and he was subjected racism his whole childhood because his dad was black and his mum was Asian. Every time he pitched up at a tournament, the white kids would give him grief and make up excuses to get him disqualified from the events. He then went on to dominate a very "white only" game, as a black man.

 

I think that's something other than the facts and figures which adds to his greatness.

Edited by St Will
oops!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I leave though I must argue this point. Tiger came from a poor background, and he subjected racism his whole childhood because his dad was black and his mum was Asian. Every time he pitched up at a tournament, the white kids would give him grief and make up excuses to get him disqualified from the events. He then went on to dominate a very "white only" game, as a black man.

 

I think that's something other than the facts and figures which adds to his greatness.

 

What a nasty little scroat he must have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would point out that I have NEVER said Woods wasn't exceptional. I just think there is no basis for comparison. If you WERE informed about other sports, maybe you would see others as contenders. it does seem you're a bit obsessive an not open to other ideas. Surely, even if a sport only has 10 people doing it, that doesn't exclude the possibility of the best one being the best sportsperson in the world, if such a thing could be measured? I don't think publicity, popularity or money has anything to do with the achievement. It's virtually impossible to give people, and even sports, an 'even playing field' with which to compare validity, difficulty etc - even less realistic when so much is subjective.

 

Even a sport being more widley watched or supported - that doesn't make it a 'better' sport. Joe Public is not often the best judge - consider the singles chart. These things develop organically, and it's partially by chance and so on that kayaking is a much bigger sport in Eastern Europe, Germany, France, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would point out that I have NEVER said Woods wasn't exceptional. I just think there is no basis for comparison. If you WERE informed about other sports, maybe you would see others as contenders.

 

I have mentioned Federer.

 

My opinion is that if we're talking about the greatest SPORTSMAN ever, not the greatest SPORTSMAN IN THEIR SPORT, you have to compare facts and figures. How else can you decipher who's the greatest? That's how the argument in the press about who is greater, Federer or Woods is made. Comparing Federer's grand slams against Woods' majors.

 

10 world titles in kayaking for Richard Fox is, no doubt, incredible in kayaking. I have no doubt about that because you've fought that point. But 14 Majors (and counting), and 6 or so world golf championships is more. Federer's 15 grand slams is more. The pro-Woods debate in the press is that Woods has more people to beat every tournament, Federer has to beat only 7 or 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think using majors and so on as a statistical basis to prove a point is totally flawed. I'm not really saying Fox is the best ever, as I honestly think it's a silly term - but as an example, winning THE most important title in the world consistently over such a period is incredible - and if you factor in the world cup series, he would be up there in terms of events competing against the best in the world, just like Fed and Woods - and just like their plaudits being given on their ability to adapt and be the best in a range of environments, this applies more than every in kayaking. So I just you need to reconsider what you claim as irrefutable proof. Statistics can be used for anything, but at the end of the day, a number means little without a thorough contexualisation, and we don't have that in any way here. We just CAN'T prove that Fox's ability levels within his sport would not have outstripped that of Woods and Fed. I'm not saying they did, but you can't say they didn't. It's simply not possible to do so. The same applies for people like Redgrave, Armstrong, Bolt, McCoy, Rossi, Ali, Pele, Taylor, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

winning THE most important title in the world consistently over such a period is incredible

 

But the majors are THE most important titles in the world. There isn't a single event bigger. Yes there are 4, but they have the best players in the world at every one of them. Every golfer is judged on majors. Thats why Sergio Garcia is the most frustrated golfer on the planet - the best player not to have won a major.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last one.

 

St Will, I think you failed to see my point. These World Championships were equally important, more so by grace of there only being one a year, at once stage every two years. The world cup races were a series, but always had the best in the world there too, at every race. So I'm not sure of the differentiation you're trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saintwarwick and robsk II, the two kayak luvvies. please, get a room!

 

As I said try it and try researching the sport before passing judgment, I have experienced both so am qualified to pass judgment unlike you and your biased views towards the only sport you know anything about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mentioned Federer.

 

My opinion is that if we're talking about the greatest SPORTSMAN ever, not the greatest SPORTSMAN IN THEIR SPORT, you have to compare facts and figures. How else can you decipher who's the greatest? That's how the argument in the press about who is greater, Federer or Woods is made. Comparing Federer's grand slams against Woods' majors.

 

10 world titles in kayaking for Richard Fox is, no doubt, incredible in kayaking. I have no doubt about that because you've fought that point. But 14 Majors (and counting), and 6 or so world golf championships is more. Federer's 15 grand slams is more. The pro-Woods debate in the press is that Woods has more people to beat every tournament, Federer has to beat only 7 or 8.

 

I pointed out previously that Jack Nicklaus as winning more than 14 majors, surely then he is the greatest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pointed out previously that Jack Nicklaus as winning more than 14 majors, surely then he is the greatest?

 

Nicklaus hadn't won 14 by 33 years old, and didn't win the US Open by 15 and the Masters by 12. It's pretty much nailed on that Woods will overtake the 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said try it and try researching the sport before passing judgment, I have experienced both so am qualified to pass judgment unlike you and your biased views towards the only sport you know anything about.

 

Just because I know nothing about kayaking doesn't mean I know nothing about other sports. "Experiencing" a sport doesn't exactly qualify you for anything. If it does, then I'm also qualified to talk about kayaking. I've actually done quite a bit of kayaking when I was at school up in the Lake District. Both racing on a lake and slalom in a river. How much golf have you played?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last one.

 

St Will, I think you failed to see my point. These World Championships were equally important, more so by grace of there only being one a year, at once stage every two years. The world cup races were a series, but always had the best in the world there too, at every race. So I'm not sure of the differentiation you're trying to make.

 

I'm not making a differentiation or a comparison. I'm not saying that one is more important than the other. I'm saying the fact there are 4 majors in a year, and one world champs in kayaking, is irrelevant. Woods has won 14, and Fox, 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I know nothing about kayaking doesn't mean I know nothing about other sports. "Experiencing" a sport doesn't exactly qualify you for anything. If it does, then I'm also qualified to talk about kayaking. I've actually done quite a bit of kayaking when I was at school up in the Lake District. Both racing on a lake and slalom in a river. How much golf have you played?

 

I've Played golf for over 30 years and also done kayaking, if you have done both then we can agree on one thing and that kayaking requires a lot more physical and demanding effort than golf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicklaus hadn't won 14 by 33 years old, and didn't win the US Open by 15 and the Masters by 12. It's pretty much nailed on that Woods will overtake the 18.

 

Like he was pretty much nailed on to win this years open and most certainly nailed on to make the cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like he was pretty much nailed on to win this years open and most certainly nailed on to make the cut.

 

Look back on the thread about the Open, I actually made the point I'd think he'd miss the cut. His coach has ****ed his swing technique up, and he can't hit it off the tee at the minute. His coach is pretty much fired by the sounds of it, so once he has that resolved, he'll be back doing what he did in 2000. I think he'll win 21 or 22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've Played golf for over 30 years and also done kayaking, if you have done both then we can agree on one thing and that kayaking requires a lot more physical and demanding effort than golf.

 

Which has no relevance whatsoever when discussing who is the greater sportsman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying the fact there are 4 majors in a year, and one world champs in kayaking, is irrelevant. Woods has won 14, and Fox, 10.

 

Um - so Fox had the chance to do it once a year, Woods 4 times a year? And this suggests Woods is better? Whaa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um - so Fox had the chance to do it once a year, Woods 4 times a year? And this suggests Woods is better? Whaa?

 

It doesn't make him worse, which you're trying to imply. Woods has 100-150 players in the same field also trying to win. And if you hit a bad shot in golf, that can end your tournament. In kayaking, you get several attempts at the same slalom course to get that perfect run. There's no second try in golf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said worse. My point is that, across different sports with radically different systems, competitions etc, you simply can't trot out statistics like that because they bear little relevance.

 

In the World Championships and so on, at the start of the off there might well be 100 boats. Also - if you mess up one move, miss a gate, you've blown it. You can get back on track in golf at least more so over 18 holes. If you touch a gate and get 2 secs added on that can put you well out of contention. Drop low, get an angle wrong, miss a single stroke - it can be game over. Also, international comeptition, as well as the top domestic divisions, have had aggregate runs for several years. It took a bit of getting used to, but now the winners go all out, twice, aiming for two perfect runs, because it's what you need to win those golds. Even in Fox's day, you had one practice run, and two runs to make it count. The rest of the knowledge was gained only from walking the course, reading the water, and preparing for every second in your head. I used to be able to tell you to within 5 seconds how long I'd take down a course of 2-3 minutes without ever paddling it. This isn't a lame rivalry thing, but I honestly think, at the top, this is more unforgiving. You can mess up a bit and be screwed in a competition, less so in golf. You would have to nail everything after to get back in the running, and I mean nail.

 

 

Try having a quick look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said worse. My point is that, across different sports with radically different systems, competitions etc, you simply can't trot out statistics like that because they bear little relevance.

 

In the World Championships and so on, at the start of the off there might well be 100 boats. Also - if you mess up one move, miss a gate, you've blown it. You can get back on track in golf at least more so over 18 holes. If you touch a gate and get 2 secs added on that can put you well out of contention. Drop low, get an angle wrong, miss a single stroke - it can be game over. Also, international comeptition, as well as the top domestic divisions, have had aggregate runs for several years. It took a bit of getting used to, but now the winners go all out, twice, aiming for two perfect runs, because it's what you need to win those golds. Even in Fox's day, you had one practice run, and two runs to make it count. The rest of the knowledge was gained only from walking the course, reading the water, and preparing for every second in your head. I used to be able to tell you to within 5 seconds how long I'd take down a course of 2-3 minutes without ever paddling it. This isn't a lame rivalry thing, but I honestly think, at the top, this is more unforgiving. You can mess up a bit and be screwed in a competition, less so in golf. You would have to nail everything after to get back in the running, and I mean nail.

 

 

Try having a quick look.

 

Yeah well I can't agree with that. You only have 18 holes to get back on track if you're on the first hole. When you're on the 18th hole and you hit it in the water or you miss a tap in putt, you can't fix it. I know.....I missed a 4 foot putt and a 6 foot putt on 16 and 17 today and it cost me a grand. 10 feet of grass between me and a grand. The margins are very small, and every shot can cost you a place and cost you money, and can cost you winning tournaments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but you can still get lucky and hole in one or albatross something. Of course at the top level you can't give much away, but if you genuinely **** up in slalom, that's IT.

 

I thought you get two runs though? So you get two chances to put up your best time/score right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. That was once the case, and believe me, that's still pretty tight given the nature of the sport. Nowadays, both runs get added together. One **** up, game over.

 

OK well if you ask Tommy Watson bout the margins between winning and losing in golf, he'll give you a pretty strong answer, especially after what happened on the last hole of the Open. And that kind of thing happens nearly every week. When it comes down to it, one error and you're done. And as Watson would tell you about the 72nd hole of the Open, you can hit a perfect shot - you can execute absolutely perfectly - and you can still get punished. one of the reasons why golf is so much a mental game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you can see that the same applies, at least equally, in slalom? I mean, at least in the open, everyone thought Watson had ****ed it on the second of the playoff 4 - but then pulls that lovely shot over the dune to give himself a shot at that putt? Then he ****ed it over the last two holes anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely you can see that the same applies, at least equally, in slalom? I mean, at least in the open, everyone thought Watson had ****ed it on the second of the playoff 4 - but then pulls that lovely shot over the dune to give himself a shot at that putt? Then he ****ed it over the last two holes anyway?

 

He was gone as soon as he made bogey on the 72nd and got himself in the playoff though - mentally he must have been in pieces, and being an old boy, he was knackered too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I make a valid point about the whole chance to recover thing, and you just conveniently make an excuse when presented with this? An error of that magnitude could not have been recovered on slalom. I'm not even having a go at golf, it's a good game - but why deny the obvious facts about each sport? Golf is what it is because of it being played over 18 holes, slalom is what is is because of its margins for error and recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I make a valid point about the whole chance to recover thing, and you just conveniently make an excuse when presented with this? An error of that magnitude could not have been recovered on slalom. I'm not even having a go at golf, it's a good game - but why deny the obvious facts about each sport? Golf is what it is because of it being played over 18 holes, slalom is what is is because of its margins for error and recovery.

 

I wasn't making an excuse and I'm not going to entertain you with a response if you're going to spoil for an argument every time you find an opportunity to!! OK I really have had enough of this now. You're right, it's boring. So let's just knock it on the head. No doubt you'll come back with another smart arse comment, but I'm not going to give this discussion any more of my time, because it's going nowhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even looking for a fight. I just find your stubborn refusal to be in any way objective baffling.

 

I wasn't doing anything but discussing what happened to Watson in the Open in the last post before you came out with an argumentative point, AGAIN. Just because I decided to discuss Watson in the Open does not mean I was disagreeing about your point about no time for recovery in kayaking, does it?! If you've assumed that, then you're wrong!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - re-read what you've written. I think you do suggest there's no room for error in golf, I suggest there's a bit more in it than in slalom, and demonstrate it. I'm not arguing. just seeing if you can be objective. It doesn't make slalom 'better'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - re-read what you've written. I think you do suggest there's no room for error in golf, I suggest there's a bit more in it than in slalom, and demonstrate it. I'm not arguing. just seeing if you can be objective. It doesn't make slalom 'better'.

 

I have re-read what I wrote. The point I made wasn't even about recovery in golf or slalom at all!! All I was saying was Watson was done once he didn't get in the playoff. Not because he didn't have time to recover the situation, but because he was knackered and mentally in a mess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he wasn't, because he had the chance to come back, surely? Clearly, he didn't take it for various reasons, but the fact remains.

 

He also hit a perfect shot into 18 and got an awful bounce on the green. Something he had no control over. Mentally he would have been in tatters after that. In most sports, if you execute perfectly, you get a perfect result. That's the thing that's so hard about golf, you can do everything perfectly and still get a bad result. It sucks. But that's what makes it so great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And random swells, freak waves can ruin an Olympic run. All sports are done for a reason, and loved by many or few, for a reason. Golf is just one of them. Tiger Woods is just a man, and a particularly good sportsman. Like Fox was.

 

Night. This has amused me greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Unfortunately RL players barely warrant a mention these days but Kyle Eastmond would be a worthy winner as would this young man:

 

picture.php?albumid=30&pictureid=78

 

Actually make that RL players never warrant a mention. Even the all time greats such as Sean Edwards, Ellery Hanley and Martin Offiah never ever made it into the top 3 for Sports Personality of the Year. When you see some of those who have it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

Edited by chrisobee
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...