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

First topic message reminder :

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.

super_realist wrote:If you take the attitude that you have to know about the sportsman then what's the point, lets just give it to Ali or SRR and lets go home.

The attitude should be that a case always needs to be made and that for a minority sport it needs to be particularly comprehensive including quality of opponents. Spaghetti-Hoops presented a strong case yesterday for Rice and I ended up voting for him even though I had never heard of him previously.

Diggers wrote:Chris its not that simple though. History tells us Merckx failed tests, fine. It also tells us that there was no testing in american football back then but players were doping and history also tells us that the likes of Lewis failed tests without any kind of action from the American agencies and we also know that people very closely around Kersee were associated with drug use.
So if are going to debate drugs then its worth mentioning the full story.

I'd say that, when you're comparing the quartet directly against each other, then it is that simple to be honest. A positive test is a hell of a lot more concrete than speculation or association to shady characters.

Borg has never been implicated in any PED controversy, let alone been blatantly guilty. To argue that Merckx deserves any benefit of the doubt in comparison to him when it comes to the subject of whether or not each man / woman was operating cleanly is ridiculous.

Joyner-Kersee is merely linked to PED use (again, this is nothing more than pure speculation and guess work) due to her sister-in-law, Flo-Jo. Now I agree that Flo-Jo's world records and achievements at Seoul '88 are questionable, as she'd spent years as little more than a middling contender beforehand, became superwoman for a single twelve month period in which she came out of nowhere to set world records which boggled the mind and still stand today (while sporting a new-found 'tache) and then, at the height of her fame and powers, promptly retired before 1989, the year in which random and improved drug testing was introduced in to track and field.

However, none of these convenient pieces of timing crop up when you look at Joyner-Kersee's career. She was always considered an outstanding talent right from her collegiate days and only missed the heptathlon gold medal in Los Angeles '84 by a hair's breadth. Unlike Flo-Jo, her rise to the top of her field was a steady, smooth one, with solid improvements year by year rather than the quantum leap Flo-Jo inexplicably achieved out of the blue in 1988.

And when those improved and ramdom tests came in to play in 1989, while Flo-Jo went swanning off in to retirement, Joyner-Kersee continued to compete at the top of the sport for another seven years in 1996, by which time Father Time was slowly claiming her in any case. And she never failed a test during this period.

Lewis failed three tests in 1988 which didn't come to light until after his career had ended, yes - but why should that count against Joyner-Kersee? What responsibility does she hold for Lewis' actions? If we're going to effectively say "Well, Lewis failed tests and it was covered up, so maybe the same happened for Joyner-Kersee" then we may as well start accusing each other of any crime which has been carried out by anyone we know. After all, if they did it, then surely we may well have done as well?

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Much more tricky than yesterday even with the same localised minority sport being there two days running.

Rice was fortunate to come up against a trio of sporting simpletons. No such luck for Montana who'll struggle to hold onto his deposit.

Joyner-Kersee seems to have collected the odd gong along the way but not enough golds for a true great.

Quite rightly, it already seems a play off between Merckx and Borg. Merckx could push a bike up a hill but Borg still comfortably laps him. Many good reasons already given but for me it's all to do with the quality of opposition. Those whom Borg defeated so regularly remain known and respected figures in the sporting world. Who were the runners up to Merckx?

Ever heard of Raymond Poulidor? Arguably the most unlucky cyclist of all time in that his early career coincided with Anquetil and his later career with Merckx.

Also something I forgot in my original article, but worth mentioning, is that Merckx also held the hour record (most kilometers ridden in an hour in a velodrome) for 12 years, from 1972, and that it took significant advancement in technology for that to happen.

Hi Mad - Nope, the name Raymond Poulidor means nothing to me. That's not something I take any pride in but it would surely be more shaming to have never heard of Nastase, Connors and McEnroe, all of whom Borg defeated in Wimbledon finals. Merckx was the biggest fish in his pond but it was a small pond and absolutely tiny compared to some others. That counts against him for me.

fair enough, though Poulidor is a big name in cycling, you'll get no argument from me that Borg's era was stronger than Merckx's on the whole...

But you can also look at it this way, if the US Open didnt exist then neither McEnroe or Connors legend would have been so great as they would have been by and large losers through the 70's. Merkcx won the only events he could compete in, he dominated them. The reason that we see Borgs opponents as great as well is that they were better than him on hard courts and managed to win some slams. So Im not sure how we can criticise Merckx for being utterly dominant and yet laud Borgs achievements all the more simply because he lost to people on a surface he wasn't as good on, but it was still a tennis court at the end of the day .

guildfordbat wrote:

super_realist wrote:If you take the attitude that you have to know about the sportsman then what's the point, lets just give it to Ali or SRR and lets go home.

The attitude should be that a case always needs to be made and that for a minority sport it needs to be particularly comprehensive including quality of opponents. Spaghetti-Hoops presented a strong case yesterday for Rice and I ended up voting for him even though I had never heard of him previously.

I'm not sure you'd consider cycling a minority sport really. It is (or was until recently) in the UK, but in mainland Europe it very much isn't (though not as popular as tennis in general, I'll give you that). For Merckx, there's a case of "can only beat what's in front of you"; He did that, with never-seen-before-or-since-in-cycling regularity, over all types of races.

Chris that is a stellar comeback, bravo. Unless someone is found guilty of doing drugs, we should consider them clean.

By the way, I want some of what Flo-Jo was on. That must have been pretty powerful stuff to improve her performance so much.

88Chris05 wrote:

Diggers wrote:Chris its not that simple though. History tells us Merckx failed tests, fine. It also tells us that there was no testing in american football back then but players were doping and history also tells us that the likes of Lewis failed tests without any kind of action from the American agencies and we also know that people very closely around Kersee were associated with drug use.
So if are going to debate drugs then its worth mentioning the full story.

I'd say that, when you're comparing the quartet directly against each other, then it is that simple to be honest. A positive test is a hell of a lot more concrete than speculation or association to shady characters.

Borg has never been implicated in any PED controversy, let alone been blatantly guilty. To argue that Merckx deserves any benefit of the doubt in comparison to him when it comes to the subject of whether or not each man / woman was operating cleanly is ridiculous.

Joyner-Kersee is merely linked to PED use (again, this is nothing more than pure speculation and guess work) due to her sister-in-law, Flo-Jo. Now I agree that Flo-Jo's world records and achievements at Seoul '88 are questionable, as she'd spent years as little more than a middling contender beforehand, became superwoman for a single twelve month period in which she came out of nowhere to set world records which boggled the mind and still stand today (while sporting a new-found 'tache) and then, at the height of her fame and powers, promptly retired before 1989, the year in which random and improved drug testing was introduced in to track and field.

However, none of these convenient pieces of timing crop up when you look at Joyner-Kersee's career. She was always considered an outstanding talent right from her collegiate days and only missed the heptathlon gold medal in Los Angeles '84 by a hair's breadth. Unlike Flo-Jo, her rise to the top of her field was a steady, smooth one, with solid improvements year by year rather than the quantum leap Flo-Jo inexplicably achieved out of the blue in 1988.

And when those improved and ramdom tests came in to play in 1989, while Flo-Jo went swanning off in to retirement, Joyner-Kersee continued to compete at the top of the sport for another seven years in 1996, by which time Father Time was slowly claiming her in any case. And she never failed a test during this period.

Lewis failed three tests in 1988 which didn't come to light until after his career had ended, yes - but why should that count against Joyner-Kersee? What responsibility does she hold for Lewis' actions? If we're going to effectively say "Well, Lewis failed tests and it was covered up, so maybe the same happened for Joyner-Kersee" then we may as well start accusing each other of any crime which has been carried out by anyone we know. After all, if they did it, then surely we may well have done as well?

Indeed her sister in law Flo Jo who was coached by Bob Kersee......JJK's husband. I dont think anyone really believes Flo Jo was clean do they ? So you have a scenario where a coach of a probably doper is married to another all time great athlete who set records that were just as jaw dropping as Flo Jo's. Personally its something that I will bear in mind whenever I look at Kersee's achievements.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

super_realist wrote:If you take the attitude that you have to know about the sportsman then what's the point, lets just give it to Ali or SRR and lets go home.

The attitude should be that a case always needs to be made and that for a minority sport it needs to be particularly comprehensive including quality of opponents. Spaghetti-Hoops presented a strong case yesterday for Rice and I ended up voting for him even though I had never heard of him previously.

I'm not sure you'd consider cycling a minority sport really. It is (or was until recently) in the UK, but in mainland Europe it very much isn't (though not as popular as tennis in general, I'll give you that). For Merckx, there's a case of "can only beat what's in front of you"; He did that, with never-seen-before-or-since-in-cycling regularity, over all types of races.

I fully accept that Merckx could only beat what or who was against him. Just unfortunate that most UK opponents had only used their bikes before to deliver newspapers! A long way removed from the likes of Sir Wiggo and Lady Pendleton today.

Think I'll go for Borg for several reasons.

Firstly:- Montana isn't even the best ever QB.
Secondly:- Joyner-Kersee is a long way short of the greatest ever heptathlete. Best ever woman probably but we aint voting on the greatest ever sportswoman so sorry if people find it odd but I'll not be voting for the chicks.
Thirdly:- Cycling requires next to no skill. Incredible amounts of stamina but little skill. Much like darts, snooker or golf but in reverse.

Tennis on the other hand is a combination (for me probably the best combination) of skill and stamina and although I'm not certain Borg was the best ever I don't think it's possible to say for definite who is/was.

Of course cycling requires skill.

Cycling in Merckx's day required much more skill than it does now. It was bunch sprints and everything. It took courage, skill, strength, confidence. It really was a man's game.

Bull, by far the most important requirement is stamina. All about how fast you can ride and for how long. Little or no hand eye co-ordination involved.

Courage? I think not.

there is some courage required. the first time i went down a hill on my bike at 45mph i nearly shat myself

There's a definite skill or talent to riding a bike, which gives you balance, sprint ability, climbing ability.

Not everyone is good at running either, you can't just be fit and expect to be like Mo Farah and that requires less "skill" than Cycling.

It's hard to see, but it's undoubtedly there, there are a lot of ways to run, as there are riding a bike. The trick is to be able to do the correct type when required.

It's too simple to say there is no skill or talent involved. If it was that easy a lot of top athletes would be switching to it because if all there is is fitness then they could take advantage of the better money than there is in say Triathlon or Biathlon.

As for sports that require courage, well there aren't many really, Winter SPorts like Skiing, Snowboarding, Bobsleigh etc, but certainly Cycling, F1. Ball sports require no courage at all.

For sure some people are more suited to it than others in exactly the same way some people are better suited to sprinting than middle or long distances both on bikes and using legs.

But I don't see it as skill. Or at least nothing like how I see the ability to time a tennis shot as skill.

How about a golf analogy. Which do you think requires more "skill". Hitting the ball a long way or getting up and down regularly from 50yds are in?

You definitely need some cojones to ride a bike professionally. Incredibly perilous high speed descents in the Alps wearing just lycra and a helmet. Always lots of spills and injurys and even a few deaths.

I agree tennis requires more accurate reactive motor skills. It's a different skill, but it's there, I don't think there is a great deal of skill in rugby, but I'm sure it's there.

Sports are wonderfully different which is what makes them interesting, but if they didn't require skill, then I'd be doing it instead of working where I do.

Oh and I sure as hell didn't say there was no talent required.

It's a huge talent to push yourself on when every limb is telling you to stop. But it's not a skill or technique as I see it.

If you want to talk about something with no skill, speak to Cheryl Cole.

super_realist wrote:I agree tennis requires more accurate reactive motor skills. It's a different skill, but it's there, I don't think there is a great deal of skill in rugby, but I'm sure it's there.

Sports are wonderfully different which is what makes them interesting, but if they didn't require skill, then I'd be doing it instead of working where I do.

In which case you'd have to accept that snooker and chess require fitness. It's a difference type of fitness maybe but you could call it mental fitness to concentrate for a long period of time.

Completely disagree, anyone by virtue of being alive can play snooker or chess. That's not fitness, it's just existing.

Every sport requires concentration, just as doing a normal job does. It's no different.

Can't remember where I read it but saw a quote along the lines of the following which sums up the danger of cycling:

Drive your car at 40mph wearing only underwear and then jump out of the car when it's still moviing onto a pile of broken, jagged metal.

Not true super, people with no arms can't play snooker. My dad has no legs so he can't ride a bike.

Snooker requires concentration. It's a fun game, pays well, little physical fitness required, just concentration. The ability to think about just one thing - the balls. It's really tough.

That's nitpicking. The majority of people by virtue of being alive are capable of playing snooker, darts etc. It's not a form of fitness being able to stand up.

super_realist wrote:Completely disagree, anyone by virtue of being alive can play snooker or chess.

Anyone, by virtue of being alive, can play any sport, unless they have a disability which excludes them.
Not everyone can play them at the highest level though, just as not everyone can play snooker or chess at the highest level

True, but it's not a form of fitness being able to play snooker or darts.

Hibbz wrote:Bull, by far the most important requirement is stamina. All about how fast you can ride and for how long. Little or no hand eye co-ordination involved.

Courage? I think not.

Road race cycling definitely requires courage - check out what happened to Wouter Weylandts, Fabio Cassartelli, Andrei Kivilev.

Yes, stamina is important, but so is tactical skill to be in the right place at the right time and knowing when to ride aggressively or not. As for hand-eye coordination, being a good descender is far more about skill and technique than it is endurance. Oh, and the 45mph quoted above is nothing compared to top class race speed descent - Sean Kelly reckons to have seen 125km/h (so 82mph) on his speedo on a descent and Chris Boardman wasn't far behind with 111km/h through a tunnel...

super_realist wrote:True, but it's not a form of fitness being able to play snooker or darts.

But, just as with other sports, in order to play snooker or darts at the highest level, you need certain mental and physical attributes that are greater than normal.

snooker and darts do not require fitness. but they do require hand eye coordination skills. chess on the other hand doesnt - it requires intellegence .. yes both may require mental stamina if you want to become the best you can, and yes a healty lifestyle will aid you with that- but it only helps you- it doesnt make you!- many of these sportsmen are less fit than we are.....

Snooker and darts are sports- due to being partly motor physical excertion(5%) and partly skill(95%)

In the same vein 100m running is a sport- partly physical and partly skill(95% physical - 5% skill)

Chess is not a sport- there is no motor skills needed only grey matter- its like a card game, a board game.. It is not a sport

Fitness has no bearing on what sports are though..

A sport is a competitive game that requires skill and physical exertion- there is no cut of point.. it just needs both in any weighting possible

yeah cycling requires alot of coordination as well. Its not just about pounding them legs- its all about a silky rythm..

Some people cant dance, some people can.. I am sure that is the same for certain cyclists.. I am sure many just cant move there body in as good a way as others to maintain speed..

I'd voter for Kershee, primarily as she stands alone as the greatest at her sport, whereas all the other I believe you can make good sound arguments for others in their sport.

With regards American Football not being a legitimate sport, I can see why people argue against its inclusion - until you watch it and understand what is involved it seem a bit odd, but in my opinion there's no doubt it should be include, not just for its athletic merit, but for its global popularity. I'm pretty sure the Super Bowl is the 2nd most watched sporting event, after the Champions League Final, on a yearly basis. While it may not be played at grass root level to the same extend globally as football, that's not to say its played less than some of the other sports mentioned here (infact American Football is the fastest growing University sport in the country, so give it a decade or so for that filter out and we could see it growing substantially in this country).

If this poll were restricted to truly global sports only the pool would be limited quite considerably.

Rant over, thanks to the mod for putting this together, gives me something to read when I should be working.

Everything requires skills of some sort but I think in common parlance skill is seen slightly differently when you discuss sports.

Take football, there are as many skills required by a defender as an attacker but when people talk about skillful players they always mean the attacking players who beat people and go on mazy dribbles etc.

My point though made forcefully for affect was that cycling would not be high on the list of sports requiring great skill or technique.

super_realist wrote:If you want to talk about something with no skill, speak to Cheryl Cole.

Far be it from me to stick up for dog faced, racist, Cole but if what she did didn't require certain skills that everybody doesn't have to use your own words.

"I'd be doing it instead of working where I do."

true..

cycling like running or swimming requires as much skill as snooker or darts require physicality. which in both cases isnt much

football is smack in the middle for me

Hibbz wrote:

super_realist wrote:If you want to talk about something with no skill, speak to Cheryl Cole.

Far be it from me to stick up for dog faced, racist, Cole but if what she did didn't require certain skills that everybody doesn't have to use your own words.

"I'd be doing it instead of working where I do."

Not true, like much of the entertainment industry these days and especially on British TV all you need to do is fit in with their aesthetic ideal. As Cole meets that shallow criteria that's all that is required. Any "skill" she has is certainly not unique, or something that almost everyone in the UK could do. You could train anybody to be a television presenter as I've often heard said by those who do it. There is no skill there that can't be learned.
Sport at all levels requires natural talent that cannot always be learned or taught.

This is sooo tough.

IMO the best cyclist and tennis player ever, supplemented with one of the greatest athletes ever and a great Amercian footballer.

super_realist wrote:

Hibbz wrote:

super_realist wrote:If you want to talk about something with no skill, speak to Cheryl Cole.

Far be it from me to stick up for dog faced, racist, Cole but if what she did didn't require certain skills that everybody doesn't have to use your own words.

"I'd be doing it instead of working where I do."

Not true, like much of the entertainment industry these days and especially on British TV all you need to do is fit in with their aesthetic ideal. As Cole meets that shallow criteria that's all that is required. Any "skill" she has is certainly not unique, or something that almost everyone in the UK could do. You could train anybody to be a television presenter as I've often heard said by those who do it. There is no skill there that can't be learned.
Sport at all levels requires natural talent that cannot always be learned or taught.

I'm not sure that Cole's "skills" or assets if you prefer can be taught. Enough people are interested in her cracking pair of assets. Her skill is her marketability. The fact that we both think she's unattractive and talentless matters not. Enough people think otherwise for her to have made a fortune.

Sickening isn't it?

Indeed.
Shows how bad British society as got when that industry is full of oxygen thieves and wastes of skin like Cole. A truly repulsive human being, with nothing more than average looks.

I stand by my claim that virtually anyone can do what she does, all they need to do is catch the eye of the people who pull the strings. I'm sure she doesn't care as she counts her money, but she really is a talentless, pointless, half witted tramp.

average looks.

lol..

your standards are probally abit to high.

Btw good on her.. No hate here

Not sure what's sickening about her, she provides a kind of enjoyment you dont enjoy to people who do. Those same people are probably amazed a bloke can earn millions for hitting a ball in a hole with a stick which they probably see as a pointless skill.
Different strokes, different folks.

Merckx and by some fair distance.

The greatest sprinter of his generation and the greatest climber of his generation, he didn't want to just win he wanted to destroy the field each and every stage of every race he entered. 13 grand tour wins is some achievement and unlike Hinault and Indurain he did it through relentless aggressive attacks, in his first tour win his solo ride for near on 140km is something I doubt we'll ever see again.

Care to elaborate what those "skills" are Diggers?
As far as I can tell, she's famous for singing poorly, being a racist, not a very nice person and was once married to an equally repulsive footballer. Impressive CV.
You see better looking women on any street in any European city, and they probably speak better English than her too.

I can only presume the majority of you have never ridden a bike up and down a mountain because if you had you'd realise how much skill it requires. Keeping a fluid motion while on the brink of exhaustion is not an easy thing to do nor is riding down the bendy roads of the alps at speeds of 60km per hour an easy thing to do.

Its hardcore ghostly i agree..

Anyway SR.. she is just a girl that was given a break and got lucky with girls aloud. She then pushed herself to make more money and fair play.... I am not sure how racist she is tbh.. Its all just talk and stuff, well probally anyway. I dont really read up about these celebs tbh..

Wow, tough group!

But, I'll go with Borg, even with the lack of US Open. He did make the Final four times, and quite frankly, to do the FO/Wimby double that many times, when there was a distinct difference in the surfaces, is quite frankly unbelievable, and due to how the surfaces now play so alike now, won't be repeated.

And yes, short career, but that maintained his legend. Same with Sandy Koufax.

Are you seriously debating Cheryl Cole on what should be a sporting GOAT thread?

Please get back on topic gents.

Mysti she was convicted of ABH and although found not guilty of a racially aggravated offence you've got to think were she not a member of a girl band that not guilty verdict may have been harder to come by.

And I still maintain that although there are obviously skills involved in riding a bike up a mountain etc etc they are not traditionally what are known as "sports" skills.

Hell I can't imagine the football chavs seeing a bloke on a bike and shouting "Tekkers".

ps. my job involves riding a bike can I claim I'm part of a skilful profession?

I'll stand corrected on the courage thing mind you I did forget about Kevin Keegan's tumble.

Tennis is certainly a rock hard sport to be good at. Huge respect for them as athletes.

Some out of leftfield for other sections:
Kjetil Aamodt : Skiing
Terje Haakonssen: Snowboarding
Ed Moses: Athletics
Tony McCoy: Horse Racing
Sergei Bubka: Pole Vaulting.

hibbz you a posty mate!!

The GOAT of Postmen?

or perhaps a porn star??