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.

Dunno guys I face stiff competition from the likes of Neil Webb and Mickey Gynn and I'm nowhere near the standard of the one and only Patrick Clifton.

I bet you have a black and white cat and all

Apart from Wimbledon, Rafael Nadal is ahead of Bjorn Borg in every single Grand Slam event in terms of titles.
Rafael Nadal's main competitor and rival is Roger Federer, a player I consider to be on of the (for me 3rd) greatest player of all time, ahead of Borg's rival who was McEnroe.

Now I would like to see Nadal win Wimbledon say 15 years ago back when the courts played a hell of a lot quicker.

Indeed Ghosty.

Nadal even struggles in the first week when the grass is a little bit slicker and faster. By the second week it's a virtual clay court.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Now I would like to see Nadal win Wimbledon say 15 years ago back when the courts played a hell of a lot quicker.

So....

Would Sampras win now, now that the courts favour baseline play? Probably not.

Would Rod Laver even be in the top 100 given the game and technology has changed so much?

Emancipator... I hardly say Nadal struggles in the first week at Wimbledon.
He has lost in first week in 2005... and then 2012. So two times in this many years losing, I wouldn't say that struggling.

What's this? More blinkered Nadal worshipping from It Must Be Love?!

If we didn't know better we'd say this must be a blatant attempt at wummery - you can't possibly discount Borg's Wimbledons when comparing him with another tennis player. And you neatly forget the fact that Borg had no interest in the Australian Open - what was then a second rate competition, and even today is widely regarded as the Minor Major. With the changes in court speeds over the decades, Nadal would never have been able to replicate Borg's unique ability to master both the French and Wimbledon.

And for a tennis fan to put Federer 3rd is genuinely remarkable.

Look, there's Nadal over there.
Where?
Not on this list.

Quite right Julius.

We can't blame IMBL for desperately trying to bring him into the GOAT debate however - we all know that Gavin Hastings took the Mallorcan's spot in the final 64.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:What's this? More blinkered Nadal worshipping from It Must Be Love?!

What did I say on this thread that was 'blinkered' here??
You listed some great things Borg has done... ok he's a great player.
When did I deny that?

I also said he doesn't struggle at Wimbledon... hardly a 'blinkered' comment considering he reached every single final he entered between 2006-2011.

Nadal has been on the cusp of defeat numerous times in the first week of W.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:What's this? More blinkered Nadal worshipping from It Must Be Love?!

What did I say on this thread that was 'blinkered' here??
You listed some great things Borg has done... ok he's a great player.
When did I deny that?

I also said he doesn't struggle at Wimbledon... hardly a 'blinkered' comment considering he reached every single final he entered between 2006-2011.

Though Julius is right that this is not the place to discuss Nadal (though we did discuss Cheryl Cole earlier and Rafa is arguably just as good a sportsman), we would just make one final response in agreement with our esteemed colleague Emancipator's point: Rafa does struggle in the first week at Wimbledon.

This isn't a slight on Nadal in anyway, but he is usually a ruthlessly efficient individual in the early stages of a competition, yet the early rounds at Wimbledon have often seen him struggle - remember Haase and Petzschner in 2010?

But that's all from us on the matter - perhaps if Nadal has made the list we can discuss him then (If not, please refer back to our classic 606v2 'Homecoming' article - Rafael Nadal: A Breakthrough)

I went for Eddy Merckx in the end - desipte the PED issues, we can only go on what the current history is and his TdF's etc stand.
Similarly with Borg - his legacy could have been greater if he'd played the AO or carried on playing - but he didn't actually do either of those.
Even so, based solely on what was achieved, it's a tough call. I'm sort of basing it on knowing who Eddy Merckx was back then without even having the vaguest interest in cycling - so he must have been pretty special.

and they're level at 24 votes each, wow! what happens if this is the final score?

i might switch me vote back to bjorg.,.,., contemplating it!

mystiroakey wrote:i might switch me vote back to bjorg.,.,., contemplating it!

I'll be very upset with you if you do...

Whilst it doesn't matter in this instance that's why I'm not keen on allowing vote changes as there can be political voting taking place.

i think your taking it abit seriously tbh

This is serious business

Let that be your final warning MrOakey



rotapicname

Borg should win this round.

To win 11 Grand Slam Titles is frankly an unbelievable, sensational achievement.

It Must Be Love wrote:Borg should win this round.

To win 11 Grand Slam Titles is frankly an unbelievable, sensational achievement.

as is to win 11 Grand Tour races, not to mention 28 Classics, three world champs etc. and manage to be the best sprinter, climber and TTer in the world. 11 slams has been replicated or bettered by several players, Merckx's achievements hacen't been. So if we're talking "unbelievable achievement" Merckx wins hands down, sorry...

I voted for Joe Montanna.

Sure some may say that he was never a World Champion, or ever won an Olympic gold medal, however I think its too easy to undervalue the demands of playing a contact sport at the level that Montanna did for all those seasons.

If playing quarter back in the NFL was easy then every young American would be doing it.

I voted for Nadal.

Oh wait....

you tennis lot are well naughty

It's tight at the top.

It's still early doors but a bit concerned that we haven't had an actual GOAT as yet and we might see two possibles in one round.

bjorg is edging this.. Not gonna change me vote.. Allthough merx loved abit of the contraband he clearly was awesome. I do feel very Hypocritical though voting him yet judging armstrong.. i know peops have tried to justify the difference - but there isnt one in all truth!

Ridiculous that Mercx isn't walking this TBH, unless purely for the drugs issue. His record is far far better than Borg's, great though Borg's is.

I suspect it shows that voting will be skewed by communities - there is a strong tennis presence on these boards, whilst the cycling board essentially consists of 4 people.

I also suspect that because this is a UK based board, and cycling was very much a minority sport in the UK until recently (and even now, how many people could tell you who had won LBL last year - arguably the most prestigious one-day race?) Mercx suffered by people not knowing much about his achievements or what they mean.

MfC mentioned Poulidor who was a great rider, but Mercx also beat the likes of fellow belgium climber Lucien Van Impe (who was to win the best climber jersey a then-record 6 times (since surpassed by Virenque - although Virenque in his later years relied on long solo break-aways) and french climber Bernard Thevennet (who would win the tour twice). All of those mentioned are bigger names in cycling than Nastase is in tennis. So to argue that Mercx faced little competition is unfair.

On the cricket HoF threads, there is much debate over the merits of each candidate before people vote, which allows those of us who don't know much about the candidates to find out more, in a way which one post cannot. Perhaps this is something to consider for future threads along these lines, or later rounds.

Mike get over to the round 3 and vote sir don!

Wow, last time I checked Borg was several votes behind. Quite extraordinary really. I really though Merckx would win this heat.