v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 1

Today see's the first group of the competition with participants from Darts, Rugby, Snooker and American Football.

Three out of today’s four competitors have been championed by forum members (please see the below articles)

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should be progress into the next round.

The winner and runner up will make it into round 2

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Phil Taylor- Darts- Championed by CJB
Phil Taylor is the character that has transcended Darts. After taking up darts at 26, Taylor would win his first professional title in two years and by 1992 was a two-time BDO world champion. However, darts would be changed irrevocably in 1993 when a rival organisation – the PDC - led by 16 leading players was created.

Taylor would lose the first PDC World Championship final against Dennis Priestly in 1994 but losing in this championship would be a rarity for Phil. He would win 44 consecutive games, with eight titles including a 107.46 average in the 2001 final against John Part. 2002 was one of the high points of Phil’s career winning the four majors and the first televised nine darter in the PDC.

Phil would overcome a minor blip in the 2003 final to go and win three consecutive world championships. This would lead to the 2007 world championship final between Raymond Van Barneveld, four-time BDO champion, and Phil. This would go on to be labelled as the greatest match ever. Taylor would win the first eight legs and take a 3-0 lead in sets. He would bring it back to 5-3 before winning 3 consecutive sets. Taylor would win the next set to take it into a deciding set. The deciding set would go into a nerve-wracking deciding leg with Taylor losing in the greatest game ever.

The Power, as he is affectionately nicknamed, would win both the 2009 and 2010 world championships, with normal service resumed. 2009 was another vintage Phil year, winning 10 of the 12 major tournaments. Approaching 50, Taylor would lose in the 2011 + 2012 world championships despite his 11 majors spread out with these two years. With reports of his waning powers, Taylor would go on to claim his 16th world title beating the new kid on the block, Michael Van Gerwen in a stunning final on New Years Day.

The world title would be the 194th title of his illustrious career with 74 major wins. Not only is he the most successful player in terms of career titles but is also credited with the most televised 9-dart finishes, the perfect leg. He has achieved this nine times including twice in one game, a feat still unmatched, with only 34 ever hit. His dominance of the game is also shown by his amazing 3-dart averages. In 2010, Taylor would record the highest televised average ever with 118.66 and has thrown a televised average over 105 an incredible 117 times compared to just 78 from all other players.

So whilst the merits of Taylor as a ‘sportsman’ alongside the likes of Woods, Bradman and Federer may be debatable in your eyes, Taylor is a deserved recipient of this award, with his wins and consistent domination not equalled in any other sporting arena.

Ronnie O'Sullivan- Snooker- Championed by The Special Juan
Few sporting competitors can be described as the most “naturally talented” player ever to play their sport but that is exactly what Ronnie O’Sullivan is. Although he has had his fair share of controversies in the past (failed drug tests, leaving matches early), he has amazed crowds and bamboozled opponents with dazzling play, making him statistically the third most successful snooker player of all time (behind the behemoths of the sport Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis) and a real fan favourite.

The talent O’Sullivan possesses was evident from a young age. At just ten years old he made a break of 117, aged twelve he made a break of 142 and aged fifteen he made the magical maximum of 147.

After turning professional in 1992, he won his first 38 competitive matches (a record) and in only his second season on tour, he won snooker’s second most prestigious prize, the UK Championship, beating both Davis (9-6) and Hendry (10-6 in the final) on the way to the title. This made him the youngest ever winner of the tournament aged just seventeen.

Arguably one of the most memorable moments in snooker history came in the 1997 World Championship. O’Sullivan made the first of his current total of 11 maximum breaks in the first round however it took him only 5 minutes and 20 seconds to complete the break; a record which may never be broken.

O’Sullivan’s immense talent in the game has racked him up 24 ranking event titles (plus 11 other finals), including 4 World Championships, 4 UK Championships and 4 Masters titles. He is also one of only seven players to have won the World Championship, UK Championship and the Masters at least once.

Break building is the strongest part of O’Sullivan’s game and is what he has used to enthral crowds during his career. As mentioned, he has made a total of 11 maximum breaks and a total of 678 century breaks in his 20 years as a professional. One of his best and most memorable breaks occurred at the 2012 World Championship where he produced one of the greatest ever clearances to win the seventh frame against Ali Carter in the final (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY15samN7t8). The balls were scattered about the table and the frame was heading for an extended safety battle until O’Sullivan came to the table and made and produced some vintage magic to win the frame.

The flair, talent, controversy, break building, safety play and overall speed around the table when in full flow makes O’Sullivan the current crowd favourite of the game, just like Alex ‘Hurricane’ Higgins and Jimmy ‘Whirlwind’ White were before him and Judd Trump will be after him. Whatever current event is on-going, you can be sure that Ronnie O’Sullivan will be the largest picture on the posters advertising the tournament. One of his most famous controversies occurred at the 1996 World Championship against Alain Robidoux. Although normally right-handed, O’Sullivan can play almost as well with his left-handed (making him the greatest ambidextrous player of all time). When he demonstrated this against Robidoux, his opponent accused him of disrespect. O’Sullivan replied by saying “he played better with his left hand than Robidoux could with his right”. O’Sullivan was summoned to a hearing where he had to prove he could play to a high standard with his left hand. He was pitted against Rex Williams (a former World Championship runner-up) for three frames and won them all.

A true measure of greatness is how an individual compares to his fellow sportsmen. John Higgins, another four time World Champion who turned professional around the same time, is arguably the only player who can compete with O’Sullivan on top form. This has led to many competitive matches between the two including the 2006 Masters Final which is widely acknowledged to be one of the best snooker matches of all time. The two have competed against each other 56 times, with Ronnie holding a winning 28-25 record against Higgins (there were 3 draws). O’Sullivan and two time World Champion Mark Williams have met 38 times with O’Sullivan again holding a winning record, this time 26-9 with three draws. An interesting fact is that Williams has not defeated O’Sullivan since 2002. O’Sullivan also has favourable records against Hendry (30-21) and Steve Davis (22-6).

Although the hair styles may have changed over the years and the controversies come and gone, O’Sullivan’s game has continued to amaze crowds worldwide for nearly 21 years now. Despite being on a self-imposed sabbatical from the game, it’s very unlikely that we have seen the last of Ronnie, especially as he has a world title to defend in a few months…"

Jerry Rice- American Football- Championed by Spaghetti-Hans
In a recent NFL search to find the greatest player their game has ever had, two separate polls – one from the fans, one from the authorities – reached the same conclusion. There has never been, and nor will there ever be, anyone better than Jerry Rice. We could list for you the records, his all-time highs in receiving yards, receptions, and career touchdowns (records not just held, but repossessed, unlikely to ever again be taken), but what matters more is the moments. And what moments there were...

How about his first Superbowl win in 1989, the San Francisco 49ers last gasp win versus the Bengals? The Rice Bowl as it will now forever be known was Rice’s first accent to immortality – an individual Superbowl record 11 passes for 215 yards, MVP, with a performance so good that George Bush Sr., sworn into office only 2 days before, made use of the White House phones for the first time to personally congratulate him on his display. Then again exactly one year later, Rice put to bed that saying so popular amongst old wives and superstitious sailors, that ‘Superbowl champions don’t repeat’. The 49ers were dominant; The Broncos were humiliated – 55-10 remains the most one-sided Superbowl victory in history. And with 3 more touchdowns, our man was the chef serving bronco rare. That San Francisco team has a strong claim to be called the finest in the sport’s history, and all great teams have a ringleader. Like Jordan for the Bulls, read Rice for the 49ers.

Like a man who picks up the phone before it rings, his relationship with his buddy, the great Joe Montana, was telepathic – Rice would run, and lo Rice would receive. Time and time again Rice would pick that pigskin from the air by the fingertips. Yet Rice was so much more than an outlet for a talented Quarterback – his positional awareness, precision timing, riot-shield blocking, and long, mazy, electrifying running with the ball made him unique. For a Wide Receiver he wasn’t particularly quick, but like a Messi or Maradona, the man could shimmy and shake his way through a brick wall.

The mid-90s were an undisputed golden age of NFL, and a Monday night in 1994 saw possibly its highlight. San Francisco versus L.A Raiders: The Battle of The Bay. Jerry Rice makes three touchdowns – and in the process overtakes first Ol’ Walter Payton, then the legendary American Everyman, Jim Brown, before finally setting a new all-time touchdown record. In the heated cauldron of one of the game’s great rivalries, all four sides of the stadium rose to acclaim their new champion. Even Raiders fans chanted the name of the Fog City Saint: Jerry. Jerry. Jerry.

You know you have attained greatness when grown men whisper stories about you round campfires, and at last orders in smoky bars. And there are more than a few tales about Jerry Rice. It was said that he learnt by catching bricks, that he gained his high-knees by leaping through the paddy fields under the Saigon moon, there are some 49er’s fans who swear they never saw him drop a catch. He did miss a catch (once, or maybe twice), but perhaps what they really meant was that he never missed a match. His record was outstanding, his legend durable, in 20 years he only missed ten matches. He floated like a feather, but was made from oak. In his final Superbowl victory, the Three-Peat of 1995 against The Chargers – he proved the difference maker once again with three more touchdowns – and he did it all while playing with a separated-frickin-shoulder. It's said that he wouldn't get into the ambulance until that ring was on his finger.

The man was simply a colossus, a giant who towers over every aspect of his sport. Will he win this prestigious tournament? We suspect not. NFL after all is not a sport that translates - its fragmented, stop-start gameplay, and off-field excess, its half-time shows and inch-wide winner's rings run counter to the simple spontaneous joy of other sports. It would take a brave voter indeed to champion an American Footballer over the tennis player, footballer, or heavy-weight boxer. But if a GOAT transcends his sport then this is surely what Jerry Rice did – he made a complicated sport easy: Run; Catch; Run; Win. A burst of lightning from The Bay.

I have voted for Jerry Rice. Great write-ups from all three champion-ers, but Spaghetti-Hans wrote a special piece and backed up my gut feeling on this vote.

Is the Gavin Hastings part a wind up ?

Gavin Hastings? Is he the best Scottish player even???

I went for Rice. He was not only the best receiver ever, but also the best big game player I've seen, almost in any sport.

An interesting group.

O'Sullivan is an interesting case - I guess you could call him the Kevin Pietersen of Snooker: ego-driven, often difficult to understand, but more than anything a genius. But when searching for the single greatest sportsperson of all time its hard to see Snooker players as serious candidates. This is not to deny that skill is involved. There is surely a lot of skill involved. But the sport's sphere of influence is limited mostly to the UK (and increasingly China), it is not an Olympic sport and I don't think people have an emotional connection with snooker players.

Is O'Sullivan the greatest snooker player of all time? Maybe in terms of absolute skill. But the greatest must still be Stephen Hendry.

Phil 'The Power' Taylor encounters the same problems Ronnie does, and more. There aren't many 16-time champions in sport (Esther Vergeer, the wheelchair tennis player, has been unbeaten in 470 matches: I doubt she's been nominated sadly). That's a simply stunning achievement. But Darts is essentially a past-time and not really comparable to more mainstream sports.

I know very little of American Football, but Spaghetti-Hans does a fine job of making a case for Rice that the uninitiated can understand. At the end of the day I wouldn't vote for an American Footballer as the greatest of all time (no global stage). But as the greatest American Footballer he should get my vote from this batch.

Gavin Hastings seems a bizarre nomination. I don't know much about rugby (somebody defending him would be much appreciated) but he's not somebody I've seen referred to as in the very top class of rugby players with the Welsh teams of the '70s and various All Black legends.

The rugby board has been trying for a few weeks to reach some sort of consensus on who the best rugby player of all time was. Gavin Hastings didn't even make the serious discussions as to the best full back (Cullen, JPR and Serge Blanco all well ahead). A cult hero and one of Scotland's finest, but not someone who really belongs in this company.

Of the other three listed, at least a good case can be made. My issue with O'Sullivan is that for all his talent, he is flaky and has achieved less than Hendry (another great talent) and Steve Davies (one of the best 'made' sportsmen ever - huge achiever for the amount of natural ability he possessed). Whether any of the three of them are the best snooker player ever is open to debate - old guys would suggest Joe Davies was better than any of them.

Phil Taylor? A remarkable performer in a 'skill' sport, in terms of consistency and longevity - where Bristow (for example) had a short spell of dominance before his nerves gave up, Taylor has maintained his competetiveness to an age where most are shot to pieces. May not be the nicest person ever, but then to be that good at anything competetive you need a ruthless streak. Clearly the best darts player ever, but balancing his achievements in a minority sport (UK, Canada, Holland and not many others participate) and a sport with a relatively simple repeated skill (the mechanics of throwing a dart accurately are less complex even than cue sports and much less than the skills needed to be a successful golfer), I just can't vote for him.

Which leaves Jerry Rice. I was a big fan of the NFL in the 80s, but lost interest through most of the 90s. On returning to the sport with increased coverage in the early 00s, I was amazed to find Rice still playing at a very high level. His career stats are staggering, 1549 career catches puts him 445 ahead of the next best, and his receiving yardage is even further ahead of the next best. Admitedly, these were helped by playing for the 49ers for most of his career, whose style of play was based on an accurate (often short) passing game - Rice, with Montana and then Steve Young at QB was perfect for this style. Rice was a bit of an oddity as a receiver - 6 ft 2 and 200lbs was big-ish for the time, but not in the realms of the big receivers who now dominate (6'4+ and 225lbs + ), and neither was he blessed with fantastic speed - reputedly 4.7s for 40 yards, where top speedsters are closer to 4.1s; what he did have was fantastic hands, great accuracy in running routes and probably (still) the best ability to run the ball after a catch. He'd have been a GREAT rugby player - he had an inate ability to sense where space was in a defence and just be that bit away from where his prospective tackler thought.

So, of this 4 I have to vote for Rice.

Could the mods please add the case for Hastings as it doesnt help that its not listed with the other three. I'd love to see how its justified as Id agree he isn't even close to being the best full back ever. Top 64 sportsmen of all time, I think you could go out at least to the top 6400 (possibly 64000 to be honest) and an awful lot of people wouldnt have him on their list.

That's the whole problem with this thing. There are no criteria so someone can just say I think Joe Bloggs is the best ever because I say so.
Pointless.

super_realist wrote:That's the whole problem with this thing. There are no criteria so someone can just say I think Joe Bloggs is the best ever because I say so.
Pointless.

Isn't that the point. To debate?

Joe Bloggs is rubbish though

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:That's the whole problem with this thing. There are no criteria so someone can just say I think Joe Bloggs is the best ever because I say so.
Pointless.

Isn't that the point. To debate?

Yeah, debate once you have a set of rules in place to determine who is included. That's fine, but even the most blinkered one eyed rugby supporting Jock couldn't legitimately have Gavin Hastings in there as a GOAT. It's utterly absurd.
Probably better to provide a list of canditates and let some people choose 64 people there on merit, rather than flag waving sentiment.

Debating is fine Stella, its what we all come on here for. But surely there has to be some kind of sensible starting point for the debate, and Gavin Hastings being in the top 64 sportspersons of all time is not a sensible starting point, its quite frankly utterly ludicrous and coming at the start has served to make the whole poll look somewhat farcical unfortunately.
I mean, there is plenty of scope to argue O'Sullivan isn't in the top 3 snooker players of all time but you can kind of understand why he gets the nod....but Hastings...really ? As my three year old likes to say....bonkers !

Well we'll just have to wait and see which other rugby players are included. Personally I can't stand rugby, so I'd be happy if no others were included, but it's too early to be arguing over who's been included without seeing the full 64 names.

Diggers wrote:Debating is fine Stella, its what we all come on here for. But surely there has to be some kind of sensible starting point for the debate, and Gavin Hastings being in the top 64 sportspersons of all time is not a sensible starting point, its quite frankly utterly ludicrous and coming at the start has served to make the whole poll look somewhat farcical unfortunately.
I mean, there is plenty of scope to argue O'Sullivan isn't in the top 3 snooker players of all time but you can kind of understand why he gets the nod....but Hastings...really ? As my three year old likes to say....bonkers !

Fair enough but I doubt we will see to many Hastings within the 64.

Well he's got one vote already, go Gavin!

Who on earth is Jerry Rice?

super_realist wrote:Who on earth is Jerry Rice?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FJerry_Rice&ei=orXqULhEzpKGB6yOgLgE&usg=AFQjCNHZUwF6e_fGSSYhhOGclwGFxxkJzA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.ZG4

He was a real great player.

Not the easiest batch to start with, although I'd feel comfortable nudging Hastings out of the running to start with. It doesn't help that he doesn't have an article, but even without one of those, Taylor, O'Sullivan and Rice would still be the sort of names I'd expect to see in this project. Hastings, quite simply, isn't.

Right away, I'm seeing the importance and the best side of this process, which is basically about us all learning some new things. The idea of me advancing an NFL player (American 'Football' does nothing for me) as one of the elite sporting greats would have seemed like madness to me when I woke up this morning, but Spaghetti-Hans' article does a good job of neatly summarising his achievements and giving context to how highly regarded he is within his own field.

Certainly, from that perspective, he belongs ahead of O'Sullivan, who has to share the title of being the 'best ever' within his own sport with two or three others most of the time. From my understanding, Rice's position as NFL's all-time number one is much more safely secured.

Statistically, however, Taylor holds the advantage here. I've oftne said (as have others) that these kind of debates tend to favour players from individual sports, instead of team ones. No substitutes, no teammates to bail you out if you're having an off day, no suspicions that playing in a better team has inflated their standing. The athletic merits of darts are dubious to say the least, but even so, Taylor's level of dominance is scary. He's also done a hell of a lot to help the game have its revival of the past few years, the importance of which can't be overstated. O'Sullivan, to a certain extent, was doing more than anyone to carry snooker and help it stay alive during the dark, horrific final years of Sir Rodney Walker's tenure as chairman of World Snooker, during which the game really did seem to be dying. But at the same time, so many of O'Sullivan's glorious highs (the 147 in five minutes and twenty seconds, his UK Championship win aged seventeen and his performanes at the 2004 World Championships, in which he playedGod-like snooker almost right throughout, have been mixed with just asmany ignoiminous lows; headbutting Mike Ganley at the 1996 UK Championship, his walk out against Hendery at the same event a decade on, and his constant threats of retirement, often holding the game to ransom for all intents and purposes.

That said, I'm voting for O'Sullivan here. Spaghetti-Hans has put out a superb case for Rice but, unfortunately, I just haven't seen enough NFL for him to leave me breathless the way O'Sullivan has. Although my vote for the best snooker player of all time goes to Henry, rather than Ronnie, O'Sullivan has still redefined what I thought was possible on the green baize in so many ways. Watching Taylor (and darts is by no means a sport I like a great deal, I should stress), I can appreciate his skills, but with O'Sullivan, I've often been left mind-boggled.

Very tight, this opener. But I'm giving it to O'Sullivan by a narrow margin.

Phil Taylor started playing darts at 26?

I'm sure he's amazing at throwing those darts but seriously how difficult can it be if someone can start playing the game at such an advanced age and still trounce all the records? Either the game is far easier than most other sports or the competition pool is much lower.

Gavin Hastings - I know just a little about Rugby and yet even I would have never brought his name up.

O'Sullivan is an enigma. Undoubtedly a ridiculous natural talent, and anyone who has played snooker will attest to how difficult it is to string even a small break together. Can you imagine a tennis player able to play almost equally well with both hands, or a fast bowler bowling equally well with his other arm ? Unfortunately his achievements do not merit GOAT status; Hendry and Davis have much stronger claims.

Jerry Rice - never heard of the guy, but then I couldn't name a single player from the NFL. However, much as I loathe American sports, after reading Spaghetti's tribute it seems pretty obvious that this guy was a giant in his realm and clearly American football, unlike darts, requires considerable physical endeavour, which as a sporting purist I'm more inclined to laude than the purely skill-based passtimes like darts.

Hence, my vote goes to Rice and Taylor (for his achievements which are way out there).



emancipator

Ok, I just realised you can only vote for one, so Rice it is, thanks to Spaghetti; now where is my weetabix

This is so fun and a great way to learn about other sports.



rotapicname

Chris

"The athletic merits of darts are dubious to say the least,"

The same can clearly be said of snooker and some other sports (golf, shooting, archery). This leads to the problem of defining what constitutes a sport as opposed to a game.

My preferred definition would be that a sport is a competetive activity based on a physical skill or ability. As such, darts, snooker, golf etc would clearly fall within the spectrum of sports whereas things like chess or poker would be games (as they lack a physical element of a sport).

As a suggestion, at this stage perhaps it would be better to try and group each batch of 4 nominees so that we are comparing 'like with like' a little more - say 4 nominees from purely skill sports, followed by 4 nominees from purely athletic sports (track and field, cycling, rowing etc) and then 4 nominees from hybrid sports where both skill and athletic ability are significant factors (so the likes of tennis, football, rugby). Once we've whittled down the initial 64 nominees to a more manageable number (maybe 16), we can start considering candidates from more diverse areas.

super_realist wrote:Who on earth is Jerry Rice?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Jerry+Rice&l=1

an interesting first bunch of nominees certainly. I'm discounting Gavin Hastings immediately, really shouldn't have been anywhere near this discussion, fine player though he was.

The other candidates are interesting though. O'Sullivan I'm a huge fan of, such a tremendously talented player, and could pull off shots others wouldn't even see, let alone think about playing. However, like many geniuses (Shelsey brought up Kevin Pietersen) he is flawed, and controversy is never far away. The main worry for me though is that he isn't the best ever at his sport, which for me means I'm struggling to see him as a contender in this. However, I'm only being asked to choose the best of this batch of 4, not the GOAT, yet. Snooker also struggles from not being a truly global sport (mostly the UK and Ireland, with a few Chinese and the odd Australian). However I suspect in this regard it suffers less than the other two contenders of this round.

Phil Taylor. Undoubtedly the greatest darts player of all time, just a phenomenal record. I admit to not remotely following the sport, but even I'm well aware of his accomplishments. I'm going to skip the whole "is Darts a sport?" question, and decide that if he's been nominated we're considering darts as a sport (I'm not sure I would, but hey). Someone might be able to tell me though, just how many countries actually have serious darts players? Seems like a very minority sport to me, but could be wrong.

Jerry Rice. Another sport I know nothing about, the name of Rice was vaguely familiar but nothing more than that. Then I read SH's case, and it seems unquestionable that he was the greatest American football player of all time. Well, the problem for me with Rice is in the name "American football". Can I seriously advocate someone as being the greatest when he played a sport which to all intents and purposes is only played in one country in the world? I suspect over the course of debates the words "minority sport" will appear more than once, and they're certainly relevant here. I'm not saying it should be the sole judging criteria, but I do think it needs to be taken into account.

So there you go: what I like about this bunch of candidates is that each candidate is flawed in some way (or his sport is). At the moment I'm leaning towards Taylor, but still not quite convinced yet...

"The athletic merits of darts are dubious to say the least,"

The same can clearly be said of snooker and some other sports (golf, shooting, archery). This leads to the problem of defining what constitutes a sport as opposed to a game.

Think it's time to introcude Tina's "shoes theory" to the wider forum. Put simply, if you can wear a normal pair of shoes without a noticeable disadvantage, it's not a sport.

That said, I'm voting for Taylor as he's the only one we can say for any certainty is the greatest in his sport. O'Sullivan may be more talented but he's underachieved when compared against the likes of Davis (Steve) and Hendry.

superflyweight wrote:

"The athletic merits of darts are dubious to say the least,"

The same can clearly be said of snooker and some other sports (golf, shooting, archery). This leads to the problem of defining what constitutes a sport as opposed to a game.

Think it's time to introcude Tina's "shoes theory" to the wider forum. Put simply, if you can wear a normal pair of shoes without a noticeable disadvantage, it's not a sport.

Looking forward to see clowns in cars that the doors fall off at the next Olympics.

Not the strongest bunch of candidates to begin with, but the winner is pretty clear to me.

I am going to immediately discount Hastings, as like many others I don't feel that he belongs near such elite company.

It is tough for me to vote for O'Sullivan as even though I am a big snooker fan and he is one of my favourite players the one thing that frustrates me most about sport (speaking as a very average performer in all sports!) is someone who wastes there talent. 4 World titles might seem like he is wasting very little, but he could have nearly double that by now had he applied himself more throughout the years. Add in the fact that he isn't the definitive No. 1 in his sport then it makes it impossible for him to get my vote.

Now a man who definitely is the GOAT in his sport is Taylor. But that doesn't do enough to earn him my vote. Again, I am a darts fan but in this case I am really not a Taylor fan. Perhaps personal feelings shouldn't be brought into this but everyone has there own criteria for voting and this is mine. He is an arrogant individual and I feel slightly uncomfortable about voting for a man with his history (removal of MBE).

I feel like a broken record, but again I do enjoy NFL. I am not a big historian of the game however, but I had heard the name Jerry Rice before but I didn't appreciate how great he had been. Thank you for Spaghetti-Hans for a brilliant article. My first instinct when I read the nominees was that I would be voting for Rice but probably by default more than anything, but now I know some more about him I feel very comfortable in giving him my vote in this group.

Is nobody going to bother explaining why there is no case for Hastings inclusion. Id be interested to know why he was put forward, does he not have a write up to back up his case because nobody from the rugby union board was willing to make a case for him.....which I wouldnt blame them for.

Diggers wrote:Is nobody going to bother explaining why there is no case for Hastings inclusion. Id be interested to know why he was put forward, does he not have a write up to back up his case because nobody from the rugby union board was willing to make a case for him.....which I wouldnt blame them for.

There isn't a case for his inclusion because no-one's volunteered to write one. The RU section have been slow to put their hands up in general - hence why I'm writing a couple of cases (plus a cricket one)

So who on earth nominated him?

If that is all it takes to get in then I nominate Eric The Eel, Eddie Edwards and Barry Venison.

Pete - echoing similar comments and concerns, it does seem bizarre that a fringe candidate like Hastings could make a place in the top 64 without a damned good case already having been made for him.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Diggers wrote:Is nobody going to bother explaining why there is no case for Hastings inclusion. Id be interested to know why he was put forward, does he not have a write up to back up his case because nobody from the rugby union board was willing to make a case for him.....which I wouldnt blame them for.

There isn't a case for his inclusion because no-one's volunteered to write one. The RU section have been slow to put their hands up in general - hence why I'm writing a couple of cases (plus a cricket one)

Thats crazy, if nobody from the board he represents was willing to make a case for him that should have meant he was instantly off the list that he had no right to be on in the first place. Bit of common sense should have been applied.

Surely the case is should be made prior to them being included in the 64, otherwise if you can just pick a name and they get in its a farce, hence why I think 64 is too many. I reckon you could do it in 16 people, as I doubt there are many more sports than that in which there is sufficient expertise.

Please tell me Hulk Hogan isn't on the list.....

Seems you just need to mention a name Diggers and he's in.
Can I pick Steven Hawking, what a 100m runner he is.

Diggers wrote:Please tell me Hulk Hogan isn't on the list.....

Haystacks and Crabtree kept him out.

So the first group is between a bloke who wasn't even the best Scottish full back, a bloke who wasn't even the best ever snooker player were snooker considered a sport, a man who wears tights and a fat bloke who's training consists of flexing his arm with a pint pot in his hand.

Hardly the group of death is it.

The admin and mod teams have selected the final 64 and then it was up to the site as a whole to get behind the entrants. There is no case for Hastings as no one has shown an interest in representing him.

We have 64 participants and so far 29 articles therefore there will be a number of entries throughout the comp without a write up.

The inclusion/omission of certain sports men and woman is always going to be a contentious point however what I would promote is the debate over the featured participants rather than who's in or who's not which is not the point, this isn’t a who should be consider as a final 64 article this is a who's better out of the options provided thread.

It doesn't seem this has been thought through very well.

Blimey, it's just a bit of fun. Of course there will be a few 'weird' selections but the other 3 deserve some recognition.

Hmmm, seems like somewhat of a flawed concept to me Im afraid. If you are a genuine sports fan who knows their stuff across the board then its hard to be overly inspired by debating the merits of people who really dont deserve inclusion in the first place.

Lads and ladies, it was a bloody difficult job for us mods and admins to come up with a final 64. I'm not responsible for Hastings' inclusion, as I don't follow the fifteen man code of rugby, but he wouldn't have been named had he not had a few mentions on the rugby board when we asked for suitable candidates.

Yes, the project could have been shorter, but the aim is to give some sportsmen/women who don't receive the credit they deserve a chance in the spotlight, and also for us all to learn about sports and their representatives which we formerly weren't too familiar with. We've already seen that this is bang on the money; I, as well as a couple of others, have acknowledged that Spaghetti-Hans' piece on Rice has helped to change our opinions and reconsider plenty of aspects in trying to decide what exactly makes a sportsperson great.

The groups were drawn at random. If you don't want to comment on it or vote, then don't and simply wait until a group comes up which you feel more comfortable with. With the amount of candidates and sports covered, there'll be something for everyone eventually - and that was the whole point, to get as many people involved in some way.

88Chris05 wrote:. I'm not responsible for Hastings' inclusion, as I don't follow the fifteen man code of rugby

I dont think whoever put him on the list actually follows the game...
Fair enough point taken re the rest of what you say but I still say his inclusion merited an explanation (apology), which still hasn't really been forthcoming, but I guess its as good as we are going to get.

Diggers wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:. I'm not responsible for Hastings' inclusion, as I don't follow the fifteen man code of rugby

I dont think whoever put him on the list actually follows the game...
Fair enough point taken re the rest of what you say but I still say his inclusion merited an explanation (apology), which still hasn't really been forthcoming, but I guess its as good as we are going to get.

To be fair you could probably make an argument that Hastings was the most successful rugby player of those four. Not necessarily the best mind you as Rice would be better were he to play. And Taylor's a one man scrum.

Union Cane wrote:

My feelings exactly when I saw Hastings on the list.

super_realist wrote:It doesn't seem this has been thought through very well.

Are you always such a ray of sunshine?
I'm yet to find anything of a positive nature from yourself on the thread and it begs the question why you're continuously posting on the thread if to only tear holes in it?
Yes on reflection the inclusion of Hasting is probably an error, get over it and move on.

At least Hastings was the best player in his family. If Scott had been on the list this may have descended into anarchy.

Diggers wrote:

Union Cane wrote:

My feelings exactly when I saw Hastings on the list.

Ignore him then, vote for one of the other three.

You've made your point about Hastings (several times over), and chances are he will probably be knocked out in the group stages anyway.

It is a great concept, and not inconsiderable effort has gone into it already, so let's get behind it rather than sniping and moaning, shall we?