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.

Diggers Cricket is a massively supported sport, much more so than NFL.. That is why there is an inclusion of the GOAT of cricket in the theoritcial global (individual voting) awards.. but as i said tendulker would probally end up winning out(incorectly offcourse)

I've copied dummy_half's writeup on Joe Montana to the OP for completeness - a nice writeup DH.

Though I've voted for Merckx.

Cricket is massively supported - the sub-continent account for a huge proportion of the world's population. Still not quite global though, which might lead me to vote against cricketers at the end of the day (particularly Bradman who, whilst great, didn't play in many countries or v many good oppositions)

Its massively supported....in a few countries. Its only the fact that so many people live in India that make it really huge on the numbers...so really we are back to where we started about it being parochial.
195 recognised countries in the world......9 test playing nations. Its hardly widespread.

Diggers wrote:Its massively supported....in a few countries. Its only the fact that so many people live in India that make it really huge on the numbers...so really we are back to where we started about it being parochial.
195 recognised countries in the world......9 test playing nations. Its hardly widespread.

No, but surely population is more important than number of countries. Hence why American Footballers are considered and Hurling players not (I would assume)

Diggers what are you arguing pal!!

You arguing for american football for the same reason you are arguing against cricket!! even though cricket has a much higher participation!!

Shelsey93 wrote:

Diggers wrote:Its massively supported....in a few countries. Its only the fact that so many people live in India that make it really huge on the numbers...so really we are back to where we started about it being parochial.
195 recognised countries in the world......9 test playing nations. Its hardly widespread.

No, but surely population is more important than number of countries. Hence why American Footballers are considered and Hurling players not (I would assume)

Exactly....thats what Ive been saying all morning. Participation is more important than geography.

This is a better list today - I was worried Tony Underwood might be on therea after yesterday!

Bjorg - great achievements but seemed to retire too early. Possibly couldn't handle the challenge as has been stated. Also no HC Grand Slam

Joyner-Kershee I had never heard of. Those are impressive achievements but I could name many ahtletes I would consider more worthy

Montana - another American footballer! I don't know any more than yesterday about the sport. I have at least heard of him from the video game.

Mercxk gets my vote anyway. Incredible achievements and he makes nice bikes. I am putting any doping issues aside as unlike Armstrong his titles are still recognised

I think "couldn't handle the challenge" is harsh. He'd already built a legend, and didn't love the game enough to carry on once he'd peaked. That probably also explains not even bothering with the Australian Open in all but one year.

mystiroakey wrote:Diggers what are you arguing pal!!

You arguing for american football for the same reason you are arguing against cricket!! even though cricket has a much higher participation!!

Keep up Mysti. Im saying you could make a case for downgrading cricket as a global sport the way Craig would exclude gridiron as its parochial to the States. I wouldnt exclude either of them as they have huge numbers of people wanting to play the game at the top level. Unlike say....darts.

Global exposure counts as well though. I mean hockey is played in many countries across the world and is huge in India but the media exposure it gets is largely limited to the Olympics so it doesn't lead to players being recognised across the globe. There are many sports around the world that are played in countries with huge populations but are not recognised across the four corners of the world such as Gaelic Football and Curling (Ireland), Polo (India), Beach Volleyball (Brazil), Aussie Rules Football (Australia) etc which may have sporting greats but the world would be unable to recognise them.

Yeah i get ya..

I personally cant vote on american football for two reasons though. I dont know enough about the game...(i actually like it though), but the main reason is that in individual sports that i dont know about i can read the wins and the data. its much harder with team players in sports like NFL(cricket is much easier to gauge due to the way it is actually almost an individual sport within a team sport- much like baseball i suppose)...

I mean the fact is NFL is no bigger or better than ice hockey, basketball or baseball.. But it seems for some reason to be more liked around here..

That wayne gresky character or Michael Jordon are probally the only two i know to be head and shoulders above the rest in North american sports!!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Global exposure counts as well though. I mean hockey is played in many countries across the world and is huge in India but the media exposure it gets is largely limited to the Olympics so it doesn't lead to players being recognised across the globe. There are many sports around the world that are played in countries with huge populations but are not recognised across the four corners of the world such as Gaelic Football and Curling (Ireland), Polo (India), Beach Volleyball (Brazil), Aussie Rules Football (Australia) etc which may have sporting greats but the world would be unable to recognise them.

But America is a different animal, the worlds media focusses on it. And the greats of the parochial American games are known around the world, like Babe Ruth and Jordan and Montana. So they have the huge participant numbers and they are still globally known.

jeez it's a tougher group than yesterday isn't it? an early sighter of a "group of death"?

Merckx gets my vote, and I believe he truly should be a candidate for the overall title, such is the strength of his record. Borg and JJK are also very worthy candidates, but Borg wouldn't be in my top 3 for the sport (men and women combined) so that rules him out, and JJK suffers somewhat from competing in a "niche" event...

In my write-up I confess I deliberately ignored the drugs issue, first off because i was meant to be championing the guy, but mainly because it's a lot harder to get a clear picture of drugs in cycling in the 70's then it is now (not that it's easy now, but things are a little clearer). Mostly in the 70s drug taking meant buying a few so-called "enhancing products" over the counter at your local chemist. Just how effective any of it was isn't clear, and certainly the system of drug taking was far less organised than it was during the Armstrong years. Indeed, one of the products Merckx tested positive for is no longer a banned substance today. All in all, hard to really get to grips with it, and given he kept his titles I think he's a worthy winner here.

Guys, I know I have added a post but please be aware that this thread is for discussing the merits of the four competitiors in the group and who people feel should advance.

If you would like to start a thread discussing how a World GOAT competition would work then feel free as there is some interesting debate going on!

They are not globally known to the extent whereas people from all over the world would vote for them as greatest sportsmen of all-time. In my opinion that should be exclusively kept to true global sports with true global participation and global audiences. These sports would be Football, Athletics, Tennis, Golf and in my opinion it really is the sportsmen who play in non-team sports that really stand out as they stand alone and cannot ever rely on others to succeed. If their level dips they lose whereas in team sports you can have a poor game or not really contribute but the team pulls through for you.

Perhaps it would have made far more sense to have either singly sports polls ie Football's GOAT, Tennis GOAT etc etc etc.

Sorry Enforcer.

For me it is Bjorn Borg. He was untouchable in the 1970's and carried himself very well and his popularity even expanded beyond just tennis circles.

Great as Cucumber Sandwich supremo Bradman was, he was such a long time ago that I doubt much of the world would consider him.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that the point of having groups is so that we can compare between the achievements and impact of the athletes in the given group alone and then decide which athlete is most worthy of moving onto the next stage?

A lot of people seem to be dismissing athletes because they are not the number 1 GOAT contendor in their sport but surely that is to be determined when and if they are pitted against their own colleagues. It just seems a bit silly to me to declare, for example, that I can't vote for Borg in this group because Federer has a better claim overall. By that logic we can stick Phil Taylor in the semi's right now.

Anyway, for me, in this group it has to be Borg or Joyner-Kersee. JK's achievements are phenomenal but it's hard for me to shake the spectre of PED use given how closely some of her family members were associated with it (husband). Merckx is even more strongly linked to PED use and has failed tests in an era when testing was a joke

Now I may have given him the nod if this had been a competition between cyclists since they were all practically at it but this is across all sports. It would not be right to elevate his status in favour of other more honest sportspeople.

There is a bit of a myth that Borg walked away because he 'couldn't handle the competition'. His retirement was more related to his on going marital problems and basically burnout. He nolonger had any desire to play the game and so left. It does tarnish his legacy somewhat in that people always think of what could have been but it also leaves him as something of a mythycal figure in sports. The Ice man left at the peak of his powers. Hence statistically he remains among the best. We never saw him grow old and have to deal with younger, fitter rivals (the way Fed is doing now). His aura remained intact. His legend continued.

I'm going for Borg.



emancipator

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that the point of having groups is so that we can compare between the achievements and impact of the athletes in the given group alone and then decide which athlete is most worthy of moving onto the next stage?"

offcourse - but If there is a no.1 in there respective sport- how can they not go through!!

If there is a GOAT in there sport they have to go through IMO.. The problem is when 2 are pitted up in the first rounds.

Luckily we have have had two GOATS in the first two rounds only IMO..

the cycler and taylor.. so it really is a no brainer for me..

I don't think being the number 1 GOAT in your sport automatically qualifies you for the next round since GOAT (depending on your definition of it) can encompass a lot of things other than statistical dominance in your own sport. For example, global impact, popularity, virtuosity, conduct, the global reach of the sport itself, participation numbers etc. Hence we are comparing the overall impact of a sportsperson to determine their GOAT status across all sports not just their own.

If we're just going to stick the GOAT from each sport automatically into the next round then we may aswell start with a list of all the contending sports and their most supported GOAT contendor, and start the competition from there.

Essentially we're supposed to be using GOAT criteria (admittedly it's subjective and we all have our own) to discriminate between candidates from different sports, so their own standing in the sport should not be the only criteria for qualification to the next round.

Of course, if your criteria for overall GOAT includes being first and foremost the GOAT in your own sport before you can even be compared to athletes from other sports, then it's perfectly reasonable to give all individual GOATs a bye to the next round round. I don't see it that way.

But it's fun in any case.



emancipator

Razor-tight between Merckx, Joyner-Kersee and Borg, for me. And particularly agonizing as I had to champion two of those three, but can only pick one!

Not any kind of fan of cycling really, but clearly Merckx's record is demonstrably better than anyone else's within his sport, and cycling doesn't score too badly in terms of how deep a global sport it is. Likewise, while a couple of yesterday's candidates can be accused of having a less than towering training schedule, there can be no such accusation raised at the Belgian. Cycling is amongst the most demanding of all sports, I'd imagine.

Normally, I would vote for Merckx. However, the PED issue takes just a wee bit of the glitter off of him, for me. I won't downgrade any candidate (well, most of them anyway) for extra-curricular wrongdoing - unless it's an example of them actually cheating within their sport.

Merckx is, quite rightly, lauded for his versatility, but I'd say that Borg can perhaps match or even better him in that department. Once more, I can not overstate how phenomenal a feat winning so many French Opens and so many Wimbledons back to back is. In today's era, it's still outstanding. But in Borg's era, it's nigh-on unbeleivable. Up until the turn of the century, grass court tennis was, by large, a specialist's game. Certainly, great grass court players didn't make for great clay courters.

Let's take a look at John McEnroe (three Wimbledon titles), Boris Becker (also three), Stefan Edberg (two) and Pete Sampras (seven). All fully acknowledged all-time greats of the game, and all serve and volley players who had games suited to the grass. Between them, they won fifteen of the next twenty Wimbledon men's singles titles after Borg's final SW19 victory in 1980.

And yet, between them, they faild to cobble together one single victory at the French Open. Sampras, in fact (sometimes considered a greater player than Borg), failed to even make the final at Roland Garros throughout his whole career, and Becker went a whole fifteen year career without ever winning a single clay court title.

Likewise, in Borg's wake, wonderful players such as Ivan Lendl, Sergei Brugera, Gustavo Kuerten, Mats Wilander and Jim Courier all won multiple titles on the red clay of Paris (in fact, all but one of them - Brugera - topped the world rankings at some time or another) - but once more, none of them ever managed to conquer the vagaries of the Wimbledon grass.

That a man could be so utterly dominant across two vastly different surfaces, when so many greats have subsequently even failed to be in the 'good' category in one of them after being grade-A on the other, is astonishing.

Joyner-Kersee, likewise, was the supreme all-rounder of her era and her mark of 7,291 points inheptathlon is one of the great sporting feats of the modern era. As I said in my write up, for an athlete to be a serious contender to be the best ever in two separate disciplines (heptathlon and long jump in her case) is fairly rare.

I can understand the temptation of questioning her ethics due to association but, with the lack of a positive test (Merckx) and the fact that she didn't suddenly develop from being a second-rate competitor of a few years, to a world-beating one in the space of one, before myseteriously retiring just before improved, random drug testing became mandatory in 1989 (Flo-Jo - and that's not to mention her dubious health problems in retirement), it's unreasonable to dismiss her claims on that basis.

Hardly anything in it, but I'm going to edge Borg ever so slightly ahead of Jackie. Achievements in their respective fields are largely equal, I guess, but Borg's global impact on tennis was huge, and that is enough for him to (just) get my vote.

88Chris05 wrote:
Merckx is, quite rightly, lauded for his versatility, but I'd say that Borg can perhaps match or even better him in that department.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Chris. You're of course quite right to highlight Borg doing the FO-Wimbledon double three times, and winning Wimbledon 6 times and the FO 5 times is unheard of. However, for all that Borg never won the US Open, which I think should be held against him somewhat. He did make the final four times, so obviously wasn't a duffer on HC, but still. Interesting to see for instance that Connors beat him three times at the US Open, suggesting that Connors may have had an edge over Borg on Hard Court?

In contrast, Merckx could do pretty much anything, from sprinting to climbing to Time-trialling, and win at all of them. He won three-week Tours and single-day Classics (and of course three World-Championships). he also won more than his fair share of week-long races, but given these are a step down from GTs and Classics in the cycling world I didn't think it was worth mentioning.

I've already voted for Merckx, but to add my reasoning on each candidate -

Montana: Great quarterback from the era I was most interested in the NFL. However, arguably not the best ever even in his position (Favre, Brady). Suffers a bit because no-one from the NFL has ever really transcended their sport in the way that Babe Ruth does baseball or Jordan the NBA.

Borg: Clearly a fine tennis player and well up the list of greatest male players. To achieve what he did in winning FO and Wimby titles back to back was incredible given the conditions of the time. Negatives are his short career (early burn-out) and failure to win the USO. Could have been my pick from another group.

JJK: Maybe the greatest woman track and field star. Her long jump record shows what a good sprinter-jumper she was, and she utilised these abilities well to be the world's best heptathlete (although I do feel this highlights a problem with the balance of events in the heptathlon - a sprinter-jumper is automatically strong in 4 or 5 of the disciplines and can get away with being mediocre at throwing). I'd put her a level below Borg or Merckx though.

Merckx: The greatest bike racer ever (even Lance Armstong would confirm this). MfC has already made some of the argument for why his doping history is less of an impact than what followed later in cycling (i.e. much was from the use of 'recovery' products of little usefulness and drug use was almost condoned). Also, his first 'positive' test almost certainly wasn't true but was an attempt by the Giro organisers to manipulate the race result to stop the unbeatable Merckx.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that Merckx suffered a near career-ending injury in a crash at the end of 1969 (fractured and displaces his pelvis), after which he was never as strong as before.

dummy_half wrote:
Montana: Great quarterback from the era I was most interested in the NFL. However, arguably not the best ever even in his position (Favre, Brady). Suffers a bit because no-one from the NFL has ever really transcended their sport in the way that Babe Ruth does baseball or Jordan the NBA.

OJ Simpson?

Oh good call sir

If only Borg has played on instead of retiring early. Would we be talking about Federer if he'd retired at 26? Probably not.

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?

Borg might not have retired because of his peers but that doesnt mean he would have gone on to win a lot more slams. He didnt win at Flushing Meadow in 10 attempts and I think McEnroe had his number on grass by the time he quit. He may have won some more French Opens but the likes of Willander and Lendl woudl have been tough competition.
He basically had a full career at the top by the time he'd quit, he was just successful from a very young age, much like Nadal who at a similar age to Borg may be on the slide through physical wear and tear, with Borg it would seem to have been more of a mental issue but either way it was blunting his edge.
Its pure conjecture but I would have expected him to win 2-3 more slams maybe but I dont think he could have carried on at the same success rate personally.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:Oh good call sir

If only Borg has played on instead of retiring early. Would we be talking about Federer if he'd retired at 26? Probably not.

Federer at just turning 26 had 12 slam titles (Borg has 11) so probably yes

I love Borg though. Borgmania was the closest sporting thing to Beatlemania. The women loved him. But he was so nonchalant. Just walked away.

Ok borg ended his carrer early..

What if tiger or even seve had ended theres early!!

They would probally be viewed as greater!

So borg could have been viewed worse overall if he had continued..

Yes I agree Diggers, which is why I believe his leaving the sport when he did has maintained his legendary status. In the overall scheme of things his standing may have benefitted from this although, I suppose one could argue that a few more slams would have enhanced his standing among the tennis greats.

One thing that I find interesting about Borg is how reverential the other tennis greats are towards him, like Mac who always seems to speak about Borg in hushed tones. I think his respect within the game is only matched now by Federer.

It's different to how they speak about Laver (who's achievements are probably greater). With Laver it's an acknowledgement that he was a great champion but also with a tinge of fondness for an old-timer who played in a different, more quaint era. With Borg, it's more like awe. Borg was perhaps the first super athlete in professional tennis.

"I think Bjorn could have won the U.S. Open. I think he could have won the Grand Slam. But by the time he left, the historical challenge didn't mean anything. He was bigger than the game. He was like Elvis or Liz Taylor or somebody." Arthur Ashe

Borg was bigger than the game and retired, mainly, for lack of further challenges to achieve. No other tennis player can claim to have been as dominant as Borg in the Open era.

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.

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.

You can argue that apart from Lendl the people Borg beat to win his French titles arent on the list of greats. Geruliatis, Vilas and Pecci, all good players but denied being anything more than that by the briliance of Borg. The same can be said of the people beaten by Merckx, nobody is going to remember anyone who kept coming second.

i will never forget jimmy white!!

Enforcer wrote:Guys, I know I have added a post but please be aware that this thread is for discussing the merits of the four competitiors in the group and who people feel should advance.

If you would like to start a thread discussing how a World GOAT competition would work then feel free as there is some interesting debate going on!

But surely the issues are linked. In discussing the merits of the candidates, the relavance of their sports (and the ways in which sports match up) has to come into consideration!

Sometimes diversions can be interesting!

mystiroakey wrote:i will never forget jimmy white!!

Poor Old Jimmy. Used to see him out and about in Tooting when I used to live there.

Outstanding though Merckx's achievements were, The Main Event Lads cannot fathom how someone with numerous positive doping tests can be a contender for the greatest sportsman of all-time. Yes we are aware that doping was part and parcel of cycling at the time, and that Merckx wasn't the lone dastardly Machiavellian cheat in a field of innocent men, but his associations with doping surely warrant the placing of a giant asterix next to the man's name.

No-one here would vote for Lance Armstrong, so why consider Merckx? It sounds like that old tale of the man who buys an expensive fake painting, and then refuses to doubt its authenticity, blind to all evidence. You Pedalheads have invested so much into the Belgian Fabrication that you are unwilling now to admit to his many wrongs.

Any of the other 3 are fine choices.

As our championing of the great Jerry Rice showed yesterday, we are long-time followers of NFL and indeed Joe Montana himself. He was a wonderful player, and leader - and three Superbowl MVP performances mark him out as the very best in his position (yes, even ahead of Favre). But GOAT? We're not so sure - Rice is the one Gridiron giant we'll be pushing.

Joyner Kershee was a sensation. Sports Illustrated's Greatest Female Athlete of the 20th Century with good reason. Her Heptathlon points record is awe-inspiring - one of the great remaining world records. She was world class in so many fields: long jump as has been pointed out, but also amongst the elite in the 200m and 100m hurdles. There will be few females we suspect in the final 32, but her place there would be no mere tokenism. For this reason she has our vote, as Borg seems safe already.

Borg was special. He is not the greatest that tennis has ever seen - that accolade of course falls to The Enlightened One, Roger Federer - the greatest to have ever picked up a racket, and the One True Heir to this GOAT Award.

Yet Borg is a man cut from Federer's cloth. While it would be reasonable to discount somewhat the significance of his French Open victories - after all, Nadal has proved that it takes no great skill to master the Red Muck of Roland Garros - one cannot fail to be awed by the way he was able to master the lush lawns of SW19 too. As others have alluded to, the court speeds of Wimbledon at the time were significantly faster than today, and to adjust from the glacial clay to the grass's foxtrot so well proves that Borg was a true master.

Yes, his failure to land the second of The Major Majors, The US Open, is a black-mark against his legacy, but there is little doubt that he remains amongst the top 3 players of all time. The statistics attest to that, but even more so do the memoires, and the reverence with which he is spoken of. He was simply great. As for all this talk of Borg burning out - its nonsense. Borg stopped at the height of his powers - his final full season of 1981 saw him reach all three Grand Slam finals he entered.

Why did he stop? Perhaps because like Arthur Ashe says 'He was bigger than the game. He was like Elvis.' Or perhaps because during that final major tournament in 1981, while Borg worked his magic in the September heat of New York City, over in Basel a one-month old Roger Federer had picked up a racket for the first time. Borg's lifework was done - the path was clear for the Coming of The King.

Based purely on sporting records taken at face value it's easy: Mercx. To be able to win consistently such a number of different races in such a difficult sport was simply remarkable.

However we have the drugs issue. I have to counter something mysti said earlier

mystiroakey wrote:If they all [took drugs] - well its like for like anyway!!

as being simply nonsense. When everyone is on drugs it becomes a question of who reacts the best to drugs, who had the most to gain from taking drugs (if your natural hematocrit levels are high then drugs make less of a difference e.g.) and of course who has the most sophisticated and targeted doping program. It is not a level playing field at all, and to use that argument (as some - not mysti as far as I know - do) to support legalising drug-taking in sport is amoral, wrong and dangerous.

Having said that, it is likely that at least 2 of the other contenders dabbled in some off-field drudgery as well (and who knows as to the other?), so I shall stick to Mercx.

Sorry, are we suggesting that nobody takes drugs in American Football ? Or athletics for that matter. Its all about the testing, in gridiron they just dont seem to care and unfortunately the American selectors of the 1980's weren't really very interested in finding out of their top athletes were doping.

The NFL had a major clear up on the drugs front recently, it's much more clean than it ever was.

That may well be so but it doesnt change the fact that back in the days of Rice and Montana taking PED's was pretty much par for the course. Not that your quarterback is as likely to benefit as some other positions but the fact is its a sport with a history of drug use.

The NFL has a more stringent drugs policy now than ever before and so I don't believe they are as lax as some may suggest. That doesn't mean it's totally clean - in reality, is any sport?

For someone like Joe Montana, who is the subject of this poll, I don't see where drugs would sufficiently assist him. His best attributes came from his reading of the game and his coolness under pressure.

Diggers wrote:Sorry, are we suggesting that nobody takes drugs in American Football ? Or athletics for that matter.

Nope - but the simple fact is that Merckx failed doping tests, more than once. Montana, Joyner-Kersee and Borg didn't. Totally different things and it's a truly sad day - if it ever comes - when we totally ignore a positive drugs test for one athlete when comparing him to three others who have repeatedly returned negative tests throughout their careers, just because some other athletes in their professions have been caught cheating as well.

For the record, I take no massive umbrage to Merckx winning this group, as it seems like he will, but the doping cloud over his head is a black mark against his achievements, for sure.

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.

possibly.

The chances it was clean when Montana and Rice were playing is however very slim indeed, equally with Athletics at pretty much anytime in the last 50 years or so. The drugs debate is inevitable as soon as cyclists are mentioned. This is partly because cycling is traditionally a "dirty" sport, where perhaps the physical side of things is more important than any other, and partly because since the Festina and Puerto affairs cycling has made arguably more effort to counter drug taking than any other sport, hence more cyclists tend to get caught.

The whole "everyone was at it therefore it's a level field" argument is absolute nonsense, as pointed out by Mike above. However, it's almost certain that in cycling in the 70s there weren't any "sophisticated and targeted doping programs", as I said earlier it was mostly cyclists buying over the counter stuff, which didn't always work anyway (hence why one of the drugs Merckx tested positive for isn't actually banned nowadays anyway as it had no effect on performance). Not the same as Armstrong, or the East German doping regimes. This doesn't excuse it, but maybe adds some context.

Of course, doubts remain very much over at least two of the other candidates. Drugs in tennis is an interesting issue, but maybe for another day...

Well said Diggers. There's a question mark over a great many people from that era.

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.

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.

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...