v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 2

Yesterday saw the v2 G.O.A.T Awards kick off and despite the first group becoming shrouded in controversy as to who should and shouldn’t be included in the competition the v2 community voted its first two sporting greats into the next round. Jerry Rice as group winner with 31 votes totalling 46% of the vote and Darts supremo Phil ‘the power’ Taylor as group runner up with 18 votes and 27% of the vote. Leaving ‘Rocket’ Ronnie O’ Sullivan and Gavin Hastings crashing out at the first hurdle.

Next up Group 2

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

Bjorn Borg- Tennis- Championed by 88Chris05

“I wish Borg would let someone else have a go at the title for a change" said tennis legend John McEnroe, after he'd lost the 1980 Wimbledon final to the ice-cool Swede Bjorn Borg. Indeed, of tennis' four major tournaments (now usually referred to as 'Grand Slams' although, as plenty of tennis fans will tell you, that's something of a misnomer), Wimbledon has produced the fewest champions in the open era, which spans from 1968 - the year in which the world's best professionals were allowed to play in the 'big four' - until the present day.

We've grown used to seeing one player make themselves synonamous with the green grass of SW19, and make the trophy their own; Roger Federer in the past decade, Pete Sampras before him, and Boris Becker before the pair of them. Certainly, this happens far more at Wimbledon than at any of the other tennis majors. But there was one man who got there first before all of them in guaranteeing that his name will always be linked with those images of strawberries, all-white kits and, unfortunately, Cliff Richard - and that man was Bjorn Rhune Borg.

It's impossible to do justice to the way in which Borg grabbed tennis by the scruff of its neck and slapped it in to life when he burst on to the scene in the mid seventies. Like Alex Higgins in snooker or Ian Thorpe in swimming, Borg's presence turned what was seen largely as a fuddy-duddy game for upper class Brits and our descendants from Down Under in to a cool, world-wide televised phenomenon. There was tennis before Borg, and tennis after, and no other player in the men's game has ever brought about as much change.

What was the reason for this? Well, there was no single one, but a combination of factors. The good looks, the quiet yet totally absorbing charisma, and the new level of power and athleticism which Borg gave to the game all helped. In 1979, he earned over one million dollars in a single season, a figure which would have been unimaginable just half a decade earlier.

He was also an incredibly young man in what had, until then, a little bit more of a slow-burning sport; Borg was still barely eighteen years old when he won his first of eleven majors, the French Open, in June 1974. When he repeated the trick the following year, as well as leading Sweden to their first Davis Cup victory, the message was clear - no longer could the old timers (such as the wonderful and indefatigable Ken Rosewall who, in 1974, had made the Wimbledon final aged forty, a whole two decades after his first) last the pace - Borg was ushering in a new era of young, athletic superstars such as Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe.

On the European red clay, Borg was close to unbeatable. He triumphed at Roland Garros / the French Open six times; 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981. Though his overall haul has since been surpassed by Rafael Nadal's seven, his mark of four on the spin from 1978 to 1981 is yet to be bettered.

Borg's other five majors were all won at Wimbledon, and all of them in succession; his 1976-1980 achievement has still not been outstripped, and even the phenomenal Roger Federer had to settle for equalling it, with a 'fivetimer' of his own between 2003 and 2007.

However, the pure statistics can't convey the enourmity of Borg's achievements in being so dominant in both Paris and London. First of all, in Borg's peak, there was only one week which separated the end of the French Open and the start of Wimbledon. In more recent times, this has been lengthened to a fortnight and, starting in the near future, will be extended even further to a three week break. For Borg, there was no chance to have a prolonged rest, to quickly ease his way back in to the different and varied rigours of grass court tennis after playing for so long on the clay. As soon as one was finished, the other was knocking on the door.

And even more crucially, the difference between how clay and grass courts played back in the seventies can not be overstated. I remember an interview with the long-time coach of André Agassi (one of the few men to have completed the coveted 'career Slam' by winning all four tennis majors at some stage), Gil Reyes, in which he touched on how difficult and large the shift in training for clay tennis and then quickly moving over to grass was. Reyes said that he and Agassi had to totally change their regime as, "it's not just like a different kind of tennis - it's like a totally different sport altogether."

That was true in Agassi's nineties pomp, and it was even more so in Borg's peak. Nowadays, it's common to see fans and players alike bemoaning the fact that grass courts, previously the fastest and most 'specialised' in tennis, have been made too similar to the slower clay and Australian hard ones, and that there is a lack of variation in the game now. A cursory glance at Wimbledon these days, in which you'll nary a see a serve and volley player making any great inroads in to the tournament (previously, these players had been the dominant ones on the surface) is proof enough of this.

However, during Borg's career, clay and grass were the antithesis of each other. The high bounce and slow play of Paris was startling different to the low, skidding grass of SW19; conventional wisdom said that, while baseliners would always be successful on clay, they couldn't hope to beat the more lythe, so-called 'artistic' serve and volley players who prospered on the faster surface at Wimbledon. Borg made a mockery of that theory - between all of his triumphs at both events, there were three years - 1978, 1979 and 1980 - in which he won both the French Open and Wimbledon back to back.

To me, this is one of the most remarkable feats in sport. After 1980, it was another twenty-eight years until Rafael Nadal became the next man to pick up the two tournaments in the same year and, while the Spaniard's form in 2008 was sensational, as far as I'm concerned it just doesn't quite have that same aura around it as Borg's achievement in mastering both the red and green surfaces so effortlessly and so often.

Borg's influence on the game is everywhere, even now. Whenever Roger Federer's ice-cool temperament and clear-headedness under pressure is mentioned, it's inevitably linked back to Borg, who became known appropriately as the 'Ice Man' because of these qualities. When there's talk of how Rafael Nadal has done so much to attract females and children to the game with his looks, youthful energy and star quality, there will always be those quick to point out that, in fact, it was this incredible Swede who was there first.

Although a major on a hard court alluded him (he seldom played the Australian Open which, at the time, was merely a poor relation to the other 'Slams, and McEnroe and Connors conspired to make him a runner up four times at the US Open), it is likely that Borg would have surpassed Roy Emerson's (then) record of twelve career Grand Slams had he not retired aged just 26 in 1982, months after losing to McEnroe in the Flushing Meadows final for a second successive year.

Despite this, Borg, incredibly, won eleven of the twenty-seven Grand Slams he entered in his professional career - a quite frankly ridiculous ration which no other man can get close to. He was six times ranked at the top of the world rankings during his time as a player. To the nearest percent, he won 90% of his matches in majors, and 83% throughout his whole career - and once more, these are records.

But Borg was more than just a record breaker - he was a true original, tennis' first superstar. Seldom can you find a person who has been involved in a sport for such a short amount of time but has done as much, not only in terms of achievement but also in terms of popularising the game and paving the way for a generation of mega stars who followed. The 1980 Wimbledon final, in which Borg edged out his great rival McEnroe in five sets in a classic, is still spoken of in reverent terms all these years later. In 2008, an ESPN poll quizzed a series of tennis analysts, former players and writers to hypothetically build their perfect player - and Borg's name was the only one to be mentioned in all four categories; defence, footwork, intangibles and mental toughness.

"People say I could probably have won more Grand Slams and it's probably true, but the decision was mine and I'm glad I made it" said Borg in 1983, a year after his retirement had stunned the tennis world. But more tellingly, he finished off by saying, "My dream is to be remembered as the greatest tennis player of all time - I guess you could say I have come close."

Eddy Merckx- Cycling- Championed by Mad For Chelsea

Eddy Merckx - or Edouard Louis Joseph, Baron Merckx to give him his full name - is undoubtedly the greatest cyclist of all time. Until recently, people talked of Lance Armstrong's achievements, but they pale to near insignificance besides Merckx's. Nicknamed "The Cannibal", he was cycling's last true great all-rounder: capable of winning bunch sprints (he won the Points jersey for the Tour de France on three occasions), he was also a great Classics rider, winning a remarkable 28 Classic races (as well as 3 world titles). Lastly, of course, he was a superb GC (General Classification) rider in the Grand Tours, equally dominant in the Time Trials and in the mountains.

Merckx began his cycling career as an amateur in 1961. He won 80 races as an amateur including the world amateur championships in 1964, before turning professional the following year. In 1966 he won his first big race, the Milan-San Remo classic. In 1967 he repeated the success and won two further classics (Gant-Wevelgem and la Fleche Wallonne), as well as becoming World Champion for the first time. 1968 was the year he won his first Grand Tour, the Giro d'Italia, in which he remarkably claimed all three main jerseys (the GC pink one, the King of the Mountains one and the Points one).
He continued to improve thereon, winning a further 4 Giro d'Italia, adding 5 Tour de France, and a Vuelta a Espana for good measure (the only time he entered the race) upto 1974. He managed the Giro-Tour double (a feat whose attempt saw Contador fail at the 2011 Tour de France) a stupendous three times. He also claimed the hat-trick of jerseys at the 1969 Tour (a unique feat) and added two further points jerseys in the Tour, one in the Giro, and a KOM jersey in the Tour. All the while he continued to add to his Classics tally, claiming at least three per year from 1969 to 1973 (including a remarkable 5 in 1973) and adding four more in 1975. He also added two more World titles in 1971 and 1974. In 1976 he won his final Classic, fittingly the Milan-San Remo (also his first) for an amazinn 7th time.

I won't bore you with the full statistical details of just how amazing Merckx's career really was, but here are a few chosen stats nonetheless, all of which are still records today:
- 28 Classics
- 11 Grand Tours: Tour de Grance x5 Giro d'Italia x5 Vuelta a Espana x1
- 34 stage wins in the Tour de France
- 525 career victories
- most days with the yellow jersey (GC leader) in the Tour de France (96).

I think that's enough to be getting on with. As I stated at the start, Eddy Merckx is undoubtedly the greatest cyclist of all time, and as such deserves a strong mention in this discussion.

Jackie Joyner Kershee- Track & Field- Championed by 88Chris05

It says much about Jackie Joyner-Kersee that, despite both her brother and sister-in-law being Olympic champions, she is still the best athlete to have emerged from her family.

There are two notable 'firsts' on Joyner-Kersee's CV which make her a shoe in to be included in this process, at least in my eyes. In 1988 and 1992, she won the Olympic gold medal in the heptathlon in two successive Olympics, the only time the title has been retained so far in history (incredibly, it had only been a five point margin in 1984, still the smallest ever in an Olympic final, which had denied her the gold there). Moreover, there is the small matter of her completing the gold medal double of heptathlon and long jump at the 1988 Games in Seoul - before that point, no female long jumper had ever taken a gold medal in an additional event in one Games, and no female long jumper has done it since, either.

For me, Joyer-Kersee is the very definition of a 'natural talent', and remains one of the most freakishly gifted and pure specimens in the history of women's sport. It's easy to forget that, by the time of that silver medal at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, she wasn't even a full time athlete of any sort, as she was still enrolled at college and, even more remarkably, wasn't focussing all of her time away from studies on track and field in any case; she was also amongst the best female collegiate basketball players in the USA at the time.

Judging by that, you could argue that it was inevitable that, once college and basketball were out of the way, Joyner-Kersee was always going to dominate women's track and field. But even allowing for the seeming inevitability of her rise to the top, her achievements are still difficult to put in to full context, and go beyond what even her biggest admirers must have thought possible.

As any track and field fanatic will tell you, seldom do you see a world record in this sport which lasts more than a few years at a time. Two to three is perhaps the average, five years or more is exceptional, and if you can set a mark which lasts for a decade, well.......A place as a track and field immortal awaits you.

But every now and then, a record is set which completely redefines the parameters of what you thought was possible in that event. Jonathan Edwards' 18.29m triple jump, Hicham El Gerrouj's 3 minutes 26.00 seconds 1500m and Sergei Bubka's 6.13m pole vault are all prime examples. But Jackie Joyner-Kersee's heptathlon record is one such mark.

He tally of 7,291 points, achieved in her gold-medal winning performance in the event at the 1988 Seoul Olympics, is one of the great achievements in the history of track and field. A quarter of a century on, and still only two other women in history have even got past the 7,000 point barrier (Joyner-Kersee, however, remains the only woman to have broken this wall down twice). The scary aspect is that even the cream of the crop in the past two decades are struggling to see Joyner-Kersee's mark with a telescope; the brilliant Carolina Kluft, and Olympic and three-time World Champion in heptathlon (as well as the European record holder) is the only one to have hit 7,000 points or more in the past twenty years.

I often hear the difficulty and significance of the pentathlon played down in some quarters. "It's a niche event", "it's just for those who are jacks of all trades and not good enough to succeed in any proper discipline on its own" and the like. As far as I'm concerned, neither of these theories hold water. Just like great all-rounder such as Garfield Sobers (whose batting alone, in fairness, would have made him a great, but still), Ian Botham or Imran Khan can be one of the cornerstones of cricket, an all-round athlete can be the equivalent in track and field.

When American-Indian sports legend Jim Thorpe won gold in the decathlon at the 1912 Stockholm Olympics, King Gustav of Sweden said to him upon handing him his medal, "You, Sir, are the greatest athlete in the world." And in women's sport, that's exactly what Joyner-Kersee was throughout the second half of the eighties and the early nineties - the most formidable, complete and honed sporting machine on earth.

With two Olympic titles (1988 and 1992), two World titles (1987, 1993) and THAT world record, Joyner-Kersee's place as the greatest heptathlete of them all is uncontested - however, what's even more remarkable is that, rather than just managing to get it right on the night in the sand pit once for Seoul '88, she was actually the dominant long jumper of her era too, and it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that she may well be the greatest female ever in that event as well; along with her Seoul gold medal in that event, she was also world champion in 1987 and 1991. Her 7.40m leap in the 1988 Games still stands at the Olympic record, and her 7.45 the year previously was, for a while, the world record.

How many athletes, male or female, have simultaneously been dominant in multiple events (one of them being the most gruelling available to them), setting world records in both and having a claim to being, perhaps, the finest exponent of them ever? To say that Joyner-Kersee is in a select group is a masterpiece of understatement.

At the 1992 Games of Barcelona, she only just missed out on repeating her heptathlon-long jump double, coming away with a gold and bronze respectively, and her final Olympic appearance in 1996 summed her greatness up. Now 34 years old, Joyner-Kersee had endured a torrid time in the long jump final and was way, way out of medal contention until, miraculously, she dragged up from her spikes one final, great push, producing a jump - on her very final attempt - which was good enough to give her the bronze medal and to wave goodbye to the Olympic crowds the way she deserved - on the podium.

Joyner-Kersee's Olympic tally of three gold, one silver and two bronze medals, as well as four World Championship golds, was enough to earn her a plethora of accolades; in 2001 she was named 'Top Woman Collegiate Athlete of the past 25 Years' by the NCAA. Three times over - 1986, 1987 and 1994 - she was listed as the 'Women's International Track and Field Athlete of the Year.' But her finest hour, perhaps, came when Sports Illustrated for Woman opined that Jackie Joyner-Kersee was 'The Greatest Female Athlete of the 20th century' in 2000.

Not bad for a "niche event", eh?


Joe Montana - Championed by Dummy_Half
Up to the early 80s, football was quite formulaic - rushing was the key, with teams only passing the ball when they needed big yards quickly. At the extreme, the Miami Dolphins QB only attempted 9 passes in winning the 1972 Superbowl. The 49ers changed all that, by introducing an offensive style based mostly on short and accurate passing, and Joe Montana was just the man for the job. He wasn't the biggest and strongest QB or with the best arm for the deep throw, but his great assets were accuracy and ability to read the game and find his open man. While not posing the same running threat as his successor at the 49ers Steve Young, he was good at buying time with his mobility and ability to pass on the move and could gain useful yards as a runner.

Nowadays, most NFL offences are pass-orientated, and indeed the rules of the game have been adjusted to favour passing offences

He was perhaps the ultimate big game quarterback - In his four Super Bowls (all won, and in which he was MVP 3 times), Montana completed 83 of 122 passes for 1,142 yards and 11 touchdowns with no interceptions. For those unfamiliar with the NFL, completing 60% of passes is good going, and even the best QBs get intercepted about once a game on average.

Montana was voted the third best player ever in the NFL in 1999. Not bad for a player who was only drafted 82nd (and 4th quarterback) in his collegiate draft.

Never heard of Merckx but he sounds like a true great.

Bjorg was a great tennis player, no doubt, but imo, Federer and Sampras have surpassed him.

Montana was a great QB, who led his team with composure but again imo, Favre was at least his equal.

I remember kershee quite well but never realised how good she was.

Tough one but I'm going for Merckx.

That's a tough group. True GOAT canditates from their sports.

I have to go with Golden Joe Montana

4 Superbowl wins, 3 of those with him claiming the MVP award, a college championship in a legendary programme and a career at the very top spanning 15 full years.

He was the definition of "clutch", pulling out monumental feats when they mattered the absolute most and probably the greatest quarterback of all time, all things considered.

Merckx all the way for me here, and I think he should be right up there come the end of the poll. Kersee has some amazing records but I'm massively dubious about the family connections concerning PED's, then again its not like drug use isn't rife in gridiron and cycling as well.
Maybe if Borg hadnt quit at 26 he would be right up there as the tennis GOAT, but he did and he isn't which is a pity as he would have made a great one.

Borg for me. Incredible player and incredible record.

Eddy Merckx for me, he was incredible, unbeatable, and is revered by millions of cyclists for his achievements.

I'll never forgive Bjorn Borg for Mamma Mia, Voulez Vous and all those other monstrous numbers he gave us.

Gonna have to read up on these lads me thinks!!!

Bjorn Borg gets my vote.

One thing I find slightly (nay very odd) is that two groups so far and we have already had two American Football players. Sorry but that sport is not a globally accepted sport by any means and if we are to include players from that sport then do we also have shinty, Gaelic Football, Curling etc players in the list and polo players etc. My gripe over for the day.

I will join your gripe.....

The 64 does reflect the interests of the users of the forum though, there are far more american football fans / posters on here than there is for most sports.

It was just the randomness of the draw unfortunately.

I dont agree, if there are enough people playing the game then whats it matter if its parochial. The fact is that gridiron is a sport played by a lot of people in a huge western society and a huge amount of US kids aspire to play the game at the top level.
Doesnt matter where the talent pool is located, its just the size of the talent pool thats important. Which is my gripe against darts, other than the fact it really isn't a sport.

I'm not sure wearing iffeminate tights makes American Football a sport either, might be played by a lot of American's but it's still pretty parochial to that country.

Diggers the fact that the two best nations in the world love darts.(UK and Holland) tells me its a proper sport/past time!!

American Football is played across the globe. Not to NFL standard or anything, but I myself have played it in the UK so it DOES have appeal outside of the US. Until you see all 64 names it's a bit difficult to assess with worthiness of these early inclusions, wait and see how many rugby players / cricket players there are before we get jumpy

Well Diggers, do you honestly believe if this were a US Poll it would include sportsmen such as Cricketers, Snooker players or any sport which they don't mass participate in? Of course it wouldn't. As for American Football being played by a lot of people - in the States perhaps but not elsewhere to any great degree. Hence you don't see a World Championship American Football do you? In the UK it is nowhere near played by the masses even at school level to the degree of a multitude of other sports.

Gridiron hasnt spread to other countries like basketball has, basketball is probably up with soccer re the number of countries its played in now, but it certainly has a global appeal in terms of people watching it.

Now that's a list that's more like it.

Pity no-one has made the case for Montana - we had his partner-in-crime Jerry Rice in the first batch, but you have to also include Montana the quarterback and Bill Walsh the coach to see how they changed the NFL with the 'West Coast' offence.

Up to the early 80s, football was quite formulaic - rushing was the key, with teams only passing the ball when they needed big yards quickly. At the extreme, the Miami Dolphins QB only attempted 9 passes in winning the 1972 Superbowl. The 49ers changed all that, by introducing an offensive style based mostly on short and accurate passing, and Joe Montana was just the man for the job. He wasn't the biggest and strongest QB or with the best arm for the deep throw, but his great assets were accuracy and ability to read the game and find his open man. While not posing the same running threat as his successor at the 49ers Steve Young, he was good at buying time with his mobility and ability to pass on the move and could gain useful yards as a runner.

Nowadays, most NFL offences are pass-orientated, and indeed the rules of the game have been adjusted to favour passing offences

He was perhaps the ultimate big game quarterback - In his four Super Bowls (all won, and in which he was MVP 3 times), Montana completed 83 of 122 passes for 1,142 yards and 11 touchdowns with no interceptions. For those unfamiliar with the NFL, completing 60% of passes is good going, and even the best QBs get intercepted about once a game on average.

Montana was voted the third best player ever in the NFL in 1999. Not bad for a player who was only drafted 82nd (and 4th quarterback) in his collegiate draft.

Having said all that, I'm still voting for Merckx

Participation levels though are pretty paltry though outside of America, regardless of fanbase.

In a similar American poll I wouldn't expect to see people feature in sports other than American Football, Baseball and Basketball, possibly Ice Hockey, as when it comes to sport they are pretty insular. The likes of Michael Johnson (a true GOAT) and people like Andy Roddick are probably better recognised here than over there.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well Diggers, do you honestly believe if this were a US Poll it would include sportsmen such as Cricketers, Snooker players or any sport which they don't mass participate in? Of course it wouldn't. As for American Football being played by a lot of people - in the States perhaps but not elsewhere to any great degree. Hence you don't see a World Championship American Football do you? In the UK it is nowhere near played by the masses even at school level to the degree of a multitude of other sports.

The point is what does it matter where the large numbers of players live. If you are the best player ever in a sport where millions try and play professionally then thats a massive achievement. If you are the best player ever in a game played by far less people but in a few more countries then IMO its nothing like as big a deal. If thousands of promising olympic quality athletes were giving up other careers to have a crack at being the Shinty GOAT then Id say you have a point....but they arent.

Ok checked em all out

Bjorn borg..

He won 5 straight wimby titles.. Guys a grass legend..

Diggs your right in a way.. But i think a concern about American Footy is that many of us really dont know enough about the game to make true valid opinions on them

Fair enough Diggers, not a game of much skill though in my opinion.

Well it does matter when you are creating a poll on an extensively British forum in my opinion. American Football will never be massive across the globe and so their stars are not globally recognised. Similarly, if you went to the States and mentioned Phil Taylor, Stephen Hendry, Ian Botham etc they wouldn't rate them as GOAT's which is my point.

On the subject of the "luck" of the draw too, Jerry Rice got my vote yesterday despite me not thinking him the GOAT at American Football because he was the best of the four (two were pub game players, and the other was a joke). Today, Rice (like Montana) would probably be only third on my list (behind Merckx and Borg, in that order).

so statt you voted for rice based on what you deem to be a sport rather than who is the GOAT of there sport..

Stand-out this round has got to be Eddy Merckx.
None of the others have as great a claim to be the greatest in their respective sports.

hoggy thats a good point..

I might change my vote then. as i think thats the best logic to go with

Depends how parochial your own view is of the sporting world Craig. Also some people on here might love tennis and whoever gets listed may well decide that they will be voting for Nadal even though in many eyes he isnt the tennis great or indeed the sporting GOAT by a country mile.
Its all subjective but IMO if enough brilliant athletes play a game to a very high stanbdard, which is the case for gridiron, then it deserves consideration.

It does deserve consideration- But how knowledgable are we.. I would suggest that even the average US fan knows more about it than the biggest NFL fans know on here~~(maybe that unfair- i dunno!!)

To achieve GOATdom though you need a global reach. American Footballers don't have it as it is massive in the USA but nowhere else just as the same could be said of snooker as it is only big mainly in the UK an China. This means that if you did a worldwide poll as such it is certain to be a globally-reaching sport that supplies the winner such as Football, Tennis, Golf, Athletics etc as those sports are played and has huge fanbases across the globe and so the whole globe recognises their greats of those sports.

A quite incredible three candidates (I know nothing of Montana and, in light of how worthy the other 3 are, won't go looking for info about him).

Borg is right up there for an eventual winner for me. He changed tennis, had a personality which transcended the sport, and an absolutely stunning record in an era where he wasn't exactly short of competition. That he never on the US Open is an oddity, but doesn't take much away from him. Having been dominant on clay and grass he was clearly an all-rounder. For those saying he's been "surpassed", we should remember that its pointless to judge on absolutes - if we did then Usain Bolt would be the greatest runner, Tendulkar the greatest cricketer, Hoy the greatest cyclist. In his era he was simply immense.

Merckx also seems to have tremendous all-rounder qualities and must be the greatest of his sport too. To win a Tour de France in which you participate in bunch sprints is simply an unthinkable achievement in the modern era (where for all Wiggins's talent, he basically sat in the peloton for 95% of the Tour, and relied on winning the time trials).

And Joyner-Kersee also must be legend. Greatest of All Time in Heptathlon, but there are probably others from Athletics that surpass her in terms of impact.

Amongst yesterday's candidates I'd have voted for all three, but today will probably have to edge towards Borg.

I voted for Merckx, but lets face it, he took no fewer drugs than lance.

This is going to be a very close one, shame Joe Montana didn't have a champion as people won't realise how amazing he was.

McLaren wrote:I voted for Merckx, but lets face it, he took no fewer drugs than lance.

my original concern..

tbh just because lance took drugs- does that mean he should be on here. If they all did- well its like for like anyway!!

Craig, it would be pretty boring if we just included a few global stars. The point of this is to debate various merits of sports stars across sports. The discussion about how big the sport is will play a part in how people vote - but that doesn't mean they should be excluded.
For example very few people know much about ice hockey in the UK, however I bet most have heard of Wayne Gretzky. Whilst he may not have gotten you into the sport, he has acheived global awareness in what is effectively a niche sport in the UK.

I went for Eddy Merckx, his acheivements are extraordinary. If Borg hadn't retired so young and continued as he was, then this would probably have been different.

Merckx easily the stand out from this group (with Borg in second place). I do have some reservations about voting for a cyclist given the sport's association with doping and the fact that Merckx was caught doping (to a certain extent).

My issue with Borg is that as soon as it got tough - i.e. when McEnroe emerged, he gave up and retired. It would be the equivalent of Federer retiring when Nadal beat him at Wimbledon in 2009.

I'm not voting for Montana as this is in danger of becoming the greatest 49'ers player of all time poll.

CaledonianCraig wrote:To achieve GOATdom though you need a global reach. American Footballers don't have it as it is massive in the USA but nowhere else just as the same could be said of snooker as it is only big mainly in the UK an China. This means that if you did a worldwide poll as such it is certain to be a globally-reaching sport that supplies the winner such as Football, Tennis, Golf, Athletics etc as those sports are played and has huge fanbases across the globe and so the whole globe recognises their greats of those sports.

If you did a global poll then Ronnie OSullivan or Lebron James or Xu Xin would probably win because of the obsession China has with these sports. Or maybe more Indians would vote and Tendulker would get the nod. Do you think that Pele or Ali would come out on top in a poll in these two countries who make up a massive part of the worlds population ?

McLaren wrote:I voted for Merckx, but lets face it, he took no fewer drugs than lance.

Or, possibly, than Joyner-Kersee.

McLaren, thanks for pointing out that Merckx had issues with doping.

On a quick check of Wiki he tested positive three times and has had various other suspicions around him.

Were this the Cricket Hall of Fame, I suspect the concerns about his integrity would thus prevent him from getting immediate entry. In light of this his case for GOAT is severely weakened. Sadly a lot have already voted for him and so I suspect he will get through with Borg. I might throw in a tactical vote for JJK then (she seems to have been clean as far as we know).

mystiroakey wrote:

McLaren wrote:I voted for Merckx, but lets face it, he took no fewer drugs than lance.

my original concern..

tbh just because lance took drugs- does that mean he should be on here. If they all did- well its like for like anyway!!

If they all did, then we shouldn't have any road cyclists. Simple as. Sir Chris Hoy should be a candidate though - I doubt he will be.

Diggers wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:To achieve GOATdom though you need a global reach. American Footballers don't have it as it is massive in the USA but nowhere else just as the same could be said of snooker as it is only big mainly in the UK an China. This means that if you did a worldwide poll as such it is certain to be a globally-reaching sport that supplies the winner such as Football, Tennis, Golf, Athletics etc as those sports are played and has huge fanbases across the globe and so the whole globe recognises their greats of those sports.

If you did a global poll then Ronnie OSullivan or Lebron James or Xu Xin would probably win because of the obsession China has with these sports. Or maybe more Indians would vote and Tendulker would get the nod. Do you think that Pele or Ali would come out on top in a poll in these two countries who make up a massive part of the worlds population ?

global poll- bradman(or would the indians just vote tendulker for the heck of it!!), or some obscure summo wrestler(chinese voters)

best type of global poll would be for each country to have one vote...

the Goats would then be, Fed, tiger, Nicklaus, Messi, pele, Bolt, that swimming fella!!

No if you did a poll it would not have O'Sullivan top of the tree or others you mentioned. Why? Well he would pull zero votes in 95% of countries around the world, just like American Footballers. Federer/Borg/Sampras would be able to pull votes in conversely from 99% of countries around the world as would footballers and on a slightly smaller scale golfers and athletes.

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:To achieve GOATdom though you need a global reach. American Footballers don't have it as it is massive in the USA but nowhere else just as the same could be said of snooker as it is only big mainly in the UK an China. This means that if you did a worldwide poll as such it is certain to be a globally-reaching sport that supplies the winner such as Football, Tennis, Golf, Athletics etc as those sports are played and has huge fanbases across the globe and so the whole globe recognises their greats of those sports.

If you did a global poll then Ronnie OSullivan or Lebron James or Xu Xin would probably win because of the obsession China has with these sports. Or maybe more Indians would vote and Tendulker would get the nod. Do you think that Pele or Ali would come out on top in a poll in these two countries who make up a massive part of the worlds population ?

global poll- bradman(or would the indians just vote tendulker for the heck of it!!), or some obscure summo wrestler(chinese voters)

best type of global poll would be for each country to have one vote...

the Goats would then be, Fed, tiger, Nicklaus, Messi, pele, Bolt, that swimming fella!!

My thinking exactly.

How would you have Nine Chins, Nicklaus AND Phelps if each country only had one person/vote?

super_realist wrote:How would you have Nine Chins, Nicklaus AND Phelps if each country only had one person/vote?

I think the poster means they'd occupy the places at the top of the finishing order for most votes whereas your more regional sports greatest players would be at the foot of the table as many people across the globe would never have heard of them.

You'd certainly have a split. I doubt any country would vote for Phelps, and only UK and USA would vote for Nine Chins and Nicklaus, golf isn't big anywhere else really compared to other sports.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:To achieve GOATdom though you need a global reach. American Footballers don't have it as it is massive in the USA but nowhere else just as the same could be said of snooker as it is only big mainly in the UK an China. This means that if you did a worldwide poll as such it is certain to be a globally-reaching sport that supplies the winner such as Football, Tennis, Golf, Athletics etc as those sports are played and has huge fanbases across the globe and so the whole globe recognises their greats of those sports.

If you did a global poll then Ronnie OSullivan or Lebron James or Xu Xin would probably win because of the obsession China has with these sports. Or maybe more Indians would vote and Tendulker would get the nod. Do you think that Pele or Ali would come out on top in a poll in these two countries who make up a massive part of the worlds population ?

global poll- bradman(or would the indians just vote tendulker for the heck of it!!), or some obscure summo wrestler(chinese voters)

best type of global poll would be for each country to have one vote...

the Goats would then be, Fed, tiger, Nicklaus, Messi, pele, Bolt, that swimming fella!!

My thinking exactly.

What so say Estonia gets the same amount of votes as America ? Doesnt make any sense to me Im afraid, it should all be about the numbers competing. I really dont see that Bradman would win a global vote anyway, he wouldnt get anything in the Americas or Africa or a lot of Asia.

Bradman would pull votes in all cricket playing nations ie Australia, England, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South Africa so there are many millions of votes there whereas Joe Montana (for example) could call on votes in the USA but that is about it. The same could be said about snooker players - they'd get votes in the UK and China but that would be about it.