v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 6

Friday’s group saw another two potential G.O.A.T's progress into the knockout stages Olympic champion runner Michael Johnson and batting icon Brian Lara, Johnson led the group from the outset and finished with 51% of the vote. Leaving the tournament at the first time of asking are Emil Zatopek and Juan Manuel Fangio.

Today’s group sees Boxing, Tennis, Basketball and Golf compete for your votes.

We have just the one participant championed today with articles written by forum members, so please feel free to submit your own argument below for those not championed.

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

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Margaret Court- Tennis- Championed by 88Chris05

Margaret Court was, quite simply, the most prolific and consistent winning machine in the history of tennis, irrespective of gender. Between 1960 when, as a fresh-fashed seventeen year old, she won her first 'Major' at the Australian Open ladies singles event, and 1975, she accumulated a phenomenal - and still unbeaten - 62 'slam' titles; 24 in singles (also a record to this day), 19 in doubles and 19 in mixed doubles.

Never has any player case such an incredible shadow over all three forms of the game and, as the thought of top players mixing these three events continues to become rarer and rarer, it's unlikely that anybody else will again.

Court's fellow Australian Rod Laver will forever be near the top of any respectable 'greatest ever' list for tennis - quite rightly, too - for his remarkable feat of doing 'the Grand Slam' (all four of the majors in the same year) not only once, but twice; the first time in 1962 as an amateur and then again in 1969, a year after the beginning of the 'Open Era' which allowed professionals to compete in these events.

But Court's claim to fame is, I'd suggest, even more unique and meritorious - she is the only player in history to have done 'the Grand Slam' in two forms of the game. She did it as a singles player in 1970 (and, as such, can safely plead 'not guilty' to having simply dominated a sub-par amateur field), and as a mixed doubles player twice - in 1963 and 1965. She fell ever so slightly short of this in ladies doubles, but she did complete the 'career Slam' in that form, winning all four of the majors with a female playing partner at some time or another. In fact, she won them all at least twice apiece.....In all forms of the game!

Naturally, the schism which existed between amateur and professional tennis means that Court's career may be slightly more difficult to evaluate in comparison to someone like Steffi Graf or Martina Navrarilova, two women who frequenty tussle with her for the title of the greatest female player in history. However, let's consider this - Court was not able to play professional tennis until the age of twenty-six, hardly 'old' by any stretch of the imagination, but still a relatively advanged age in women's tennis, even some four and a half decades ago. If we concentrate on Court's majors count until that point in 1968, we see that it stood at eleven.

However, as a professional, she was able to add another thirteen singles majors which, on it's own, puts her behind only Graf, Navratilova, Chris Evert and Serena Williams in the open, professional era. Given that these ladies won their first professional slams aged seventeen, twenty-one, nineteen and eighteen respectively, it seems likely that, in any case, Court would have added to that number even if she had been a professional from the off. So while some will say that her record of 24 singles major titles is to be taken with a pinch of salt, I disagree strongly.

Moreover, the professionals who had been winning many of the majors in tennis before Court began playing for pay, such as Margaret Smith and Maria Bueno, were duly swept aside once this incredible Australian made the transition from the amateur majors (known as the 'Australian championships') to the professional ones (known as the 'Australian Open', for clarification). There can, then, be absolutely no doubt that Court was by far and a way the finest player of her time, and reigned as such for over a decade which, in tennis terms, equates to lightyears.

To me, Court may well be one of the most underrated sportwomen - no, make that sportspeople in general - to have ever lived. Had she emerged a decade or so later, we'd all have a place carved out for her in our sporting legends lists, and she'd have been one of her generations' mega stars. But as she herself explained, the nature of tennis before the seventies (and the emergence of a certain Mr Borg, who helped bring the sport to the masses) meant that her almost impossible exploits were always going to get the attention they deserved: "I saw Rod win both of his Grand Slams, and really nothing much was made of them at the time. You have to remember that their was no TV or money like there is today to make such a big thing of it, and it wasn't until I came back to the circuit after getting married that the idea of me going for a Grand Slam myself became such a big goal."

In my article on the great Bjorn Borg, I touched upon the fact that he was the complete player, hence why he was able to achieve the French Open-Wimbledon double so many times back in the days when clay court tennis and grass court tennis were, to again quote the long-time coach of André Agassi, Gil Reyes, "like two totally different sports." Court herself achieved this remarkable back-to-back feat in 1970 and, in total, triumphed in the ladies singles at the French Open five times (1962, 1964, 1969, 1970 and 1973) and Wimbledon three times (1963, 1965, 1970). Clearly, then, she was the complete player of the women's game; John Parsons, a long-time journalist within the sport, wrote in his 2009 'World Tennis book' that Court was "blessed with a fierce serve and attacking volleys - she was the major force in women's tennis, an all-court competitor in every sense."

Even more remarkably, Court - who was known affectionately as 'Big Marge' by her fans - overcame motherhood, traditionally a nail in the coffin of a female's tennis career, to prosper - along with Kim Clijsters, she is the only woman to have won three majors after having a child. But then again, she was the ultimate competitor who defied logic time and time again - after a temporary retirement in the mid sixties, she returned to sweep all before her and, in 1970 at the age of thirty, came out victorious against fellow legend Billie Jean King in the longest Wimbledon ladies singles final in history, winning 14-12, 11-9 over a gruelling two hours and twenty-eight minutes.

For me, it's a travesty that when we talk of great women in sport, the name of Margaret Court seldom gets a mention - and yet, she owns records which may never be broken within her field, spent longer at the top of her game than any woman would normally have any business doing in the world of tennis and played a key role in guaranteeing the survival of women's professional tennis when it was in its infancy.

In later life, she became an ordained Reverend - and whatever you think of religion in its classic sense, you can't deny that Margaret Court was a tennis Goddess at the very least.

Two monsters in this round.

I went for Nicklaus, purely because Golf is perhaps played more globally than Basketball, even back in the 60's.

Strewth, two contenders for the top spot maybe, 4 legends of their sports, thats a proper goup.

Wikipedia wrote:"By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time."

Jordan's individual accolades and accomplishments include five MVP awards, ten All-NBA First Team designations, nine All-Defensive First Team honors, fourteen NBA All-Star Game appearances, three All-Star Game MVP awards, ten scoring titles, three steals titles, six NBA Finals MVP awards, and the 1988 NBA Defensive Player of the Year Award. He holds the NBA records for highest career regular season scoring average (30.12 points per game) and highest career playoff scoring average (33.45 points per game).

A couple of other short notes about his career:

6x NBA champion, and a part of 2 teams that achieved a "threepeat" of consecutive championship wins.

Midway through his basketball career he took the decision to try his hand at baseball following his fathers murder (who had hoped his son may one day play pro baseball). He signed a contract with the Chicago White Sox, and the most famous athlete in the world at the time ended up playing in the minor leagues for the Birmingham Barons with a small amount of success. In the meantime his number 23 was retired by the Chicago Bulls until his eventual return.

Among the various legendary stories of his career was The Flu Game, where a heavily ill Jordan rose from his sick bed hours before tip off to score 38 points and lead his Chicago team to a crucial victory in game five of the 1997 NBA Finals.

I voted for Jack Nicklaus, I was brought up in a football mad household but was always told by my Dad that Nicklaus was the greatest sportsman ever. While I disagree now, at the time I used to watch old footage of him a lot, and his achievements and conduct really did make him stand out as the greatest icon the world of golf has ever seen.

That said, my second vote would have been for Jordan. What a player.

Jack Nicklaus all the way. The fact he won 18 Majors and was runner up in 19 in such a sport that has a diverse field of players is stunning. The man simply the greatest golfer ever and in my top 3 of GOAT's.

Jack nicklaus and michael jordon!!!

Come on...

Two real shouts at GOATS of all time..along with bradman the top sportsmen up so far!

Had to go with Nicklaus but only just..

I've gone Jordan, the guy was just an amazing athlete, you'd watch him with your jaw dropping to the floor saying how can he do that. Nicklaus second, have to say Courts record in amazing though, good piece Chris.

Tough pool. Michael Jordan for me. Just an incredible athlete who is a global icon.

I think i would have gone with jordan if i knew more about NBA.. I know how amazing jordan was- but i am not sure how many other today greats are close to his skill level..

Nicklaus isnt a diffinitive goat of golf for me.. Tigre is also a good shout- so if I knew more about Basketball then i may have gone for jordan..

But the fact that i know both will go through this time i am not overly bothered untill they get matched up later on...

Diggers wrote:Courts record in amazing though, good piece Chris.

I'll second that, a great piece

so then i will be interested to see what sr goes for..

allthough a regular of the golf board- he doesnt think golf is a sport.

he hates basketball

he hates religious people- court is one!!

Joe louis is from a bygone era!!!

Another tough group, and a fantastic write-up for Court, which is certainly sufficient to give me pause for thought over her status within the women's tennis hierarchy (where the other day I was arguing for Navratilova as being the best ever, and possibly the female GOAT).

I know Louis was hugely important to boxing as the first African-American heavyweight champion in the years both sides of WW2, and that some boxing experts rate him as the best heavyweight of all time (although others rate Ali as better and Marciano had the best record). As for being the greatest boxer ever across any weight division, I think he's in the discussions but not a serious contender as the best of the best.

Jordan - One of those guys who truly transcended his sport. Basketball has never been much more than a niche sport in the UK, and yet from the end of the 80s to the early 00s almost everyone knew the name of Michael Jordan courtesy variously of training shoes, cartoon films etc. Undeniably a great player and widely acknowledged as the best the NBA has ever seen - averaging over 30 points per game while also being amongst the best defenders in his position, he was particularly noted for performing under pressue. As with many of our GOAT candidates, an outstanding all round sportsman. being good enough to play creditably in minor league baseball for a couple of years.

Nicklaus - Of all golfers, Jack Nicklaus's major career stands out. After 2 US Amateur titles, he won 17 Majors between 1962 and 1980 and then the fairytale victory of the 1986 US Masters. Add to that 19 runners up finishes and 9 third place finishes, and his record far out-strips that of Tiger Woods. One other thing that sets Nicklaus apart from Woods was character - Nicklaus exeplified all that should be good about golf, as shown by his concession of Tony Jacklin's putt on the last hole of the 1969 Ryder Cup, a shortish but missable putt that would make the difference between a tied match and the US winning the trophy (again).

A close call for me - perhaps for the first time I'll wait for further discussion before casting my vote.

Oh, and as an aside, I'd reckon basketball is a far MORE global sport than golf - perhaps the 2nd biggest sport across southern Europe and South America as well as being enormous in the US. Just because it has never really been that big in the UK doesn't mean it doesn't have global status.

I think Lara was fortunate to get through the last round. Personally I'd have had him 4th of those up for debate. Zatopek probably should have done a lot better, his achievements were extraordinary. He suffered from a low profile, and a lack of athletics presence on these boards.

Today: oooh tough tough group!

Nicklaus and Jordan are rightly genuine contenders for the overall. Court has had her case put out in great detail by Chris, and Joe Louis would have a good claim to being the second best (some may even argue best) heavyweight ever, and in any other group would be a strong contender.

In this group though, it's got to be between Nicklaus and Jordan (and I think both will get through comfortably in the end). I agree with Dummy's claim that basketball is a far more global sport than golf, certainly I am sure the numbers are bigger, and it is a genuine presence in more countries as well.

As yet no cases have been made, so I won't vote yet.

his record does not far outstrip woods..

A quick few points between woods and nicklaus.

1. Woods did his damage in a dominant 10 year spell- a form of dominance that can not be matched by any other in a truely global sport

2. 2nds arent really material.

3. woods only won majors from the front. so a deffo question mark there- however has won plenty of WGC from behind

4. but at the same time only lost 1 major from the front final day(out of 15). So a plus to the minus... The tiger affect was something else...

5. woods is still going- yes i look at him as a woods mark 2-(a different player these days)- but he is still easily good enough to pick a few more up..

6. woods has won countless WGC events- these events wernt around in Jacks time- so maybe not the best to bring up. However many of these events have even better fields than majors!! and he has won -- 16 of them!!!

7. golf is a truely global sport- and the level of competition is far higher today than back in jacks time..

8. He had vijay singh , ernie else and pmick in tigers reign- 3 golfers that are or would have been legendary players of the game. But were nullified during tigers reign at the top.

9. Character isnt material in these discussions- however even nicklaus isnt the nicest bloke.. The arnold palmers, ben hogans , seve ballsterioses are for me the true characters of the game- not tiger or jack..

10. Tiger was/is not a good team player! jack was pretty decent- but then adding this to the discussion is almost like adding a tennis players doubles record in to the discussion. Not that material but maybe slightly!

the conssesion to jacklin wasnt a good thing to do imo.. Anyway- Dont really want to get into that at the moment.

"I agree with Dummy's claim that basketball is a far more global sport than golf, certainly I am sure the numbers are bigger, and it is a genuine presence in more countries as well. "

Not sure how anyone can come to that conclusion.. Golf is one of the most played sports in the world(participation levels) and has countless players from countless countries.. Golf is one of the top global sports around. Basketball is played alot yes i agree and is global- however there isnt many major professional set ups- It is big on an amatuer scale globally.

Re basketball even in the UK it gets support. Leicester beat Newcastle yesterday in front of 7500 people to win the BBL.

yeah but its minority in the uk. 7.5k isnt really material when you consider golf has millions of viewers for the ryder cup or the open/masters etc..

i think both sports on participation are top 10 in the world with about 500 million particpants each

He had vijay singh , ernie else and pmick in tigers reign- 3 golfers that are or would have been legendary players of the game. But were nullified during tigers reign at the top.

There is no way I would class them 3 ahead of the likes of Player, Palmer, Watson. There is no way that Singh or Els could hold a candle to them.

2nds arent really material.

In that case Nicklaus still out-strips Tiger. 18-14.

Woods did his damage in a dominant 10 year spell- a form of dominance that can not be matched by any other in a truely global sport

Ermmmm there was a gap of 3 years when he barely won a thing! Hardly dominant! Jack won titles over 25 years. Come back when Tiger has done half of that.

legend

first point = simply wrong

2nd yes correct= didnt say he didnt. however woods is still going

3rd- he was still dominant over his ten year spell in a way that beats any nicklaus 10 year spell- that was my point.. You bringing up nicklaus 25 year record is only proving the point. saying he was hardly dominant is kinda ridiculas..

The point is that its a very tough call between the two- espeically as woods is still going.. I cant spllt them myself. Its something that will be easier to do at the end of woods carrer

mystiroakey wrote:legend

first point = simply wrong

2nd yes correct= didnt say he didnt. however woods is still going

3rd- he was still dominant over his ten year spell in a way that beats any nicklaus 10 year spell- that was my point.. You bringing up nicklaus 25 year record is only proving the point. saying he was hardly dominant is kinda ridiculas..

The point is that its a very tough call between the two- espeically as woods is still going.. I cant spllt them myself. Its something that will be easier to do at the end of woods carrer

The first point was simply right. End of. Els and Singh are nowhere near the level of Player, Palmer and Watson.

Woods won't win another Major. I think that is wishful thinking for Tiger fans.

Simply saying that Tiger was more dominant than Jack is tosh. Tiger is in a downturn and I doubt he will win a Major in his 40's.

Let's leave knobend, nine chins Woods out of this until he comes up.

mystiroakey wrote:"I agree with Dummy's claim that basketball is a far more global sport than golf, certainly I am sure the numbers are bigger, and it is a genuine presence in more countries as well. "

Not sure how anyone can come to that conclusion.. Golf is one of the most played sports in the world(participation levels) and has countless players from countless countries.. Golf is one of the top global sports around. Basketball is played alot yes i agree and is global- however there isnt many major professional set ups- It is big on an amatuer scale globally.

I don't know about the figures, but golf for me is only really a major sport in the UK and ex-colonies, and Spain. Basketball is a major sport in latin America in a way which golf IMO isn't, and certainly southern and eastern Europe, and parts of Asia (including China). Put this way, where would you say golf is a bigger sport than basketball? UK and Ireland, South Africa, maybe New Zealand. Where is basketball the bigger sport? Even granting the US as a tie (it isn't IMO) you have South and East Europe (the likes of Spain, France, Italy, Russia, Lithuania, etc.), China and most Asian countries (Korea say), then the likes of Argentina and so on.

nine chins.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:legend

first point = simply wrong

2nd yes correct= didnt say he didnt. however woods is still going

3rd- he was still dominant over his ten year spell in a way that beats any nicklaus 10 year spell- that was my point.. You bringing up nicklaus 25 year record is only proving the point. saying he was hardly dominant is kinda ridiculas..

The point is that its a very tough call between the two- espeically as woods is still going.. I cant spllt them myself. Its something that will be easier to do at the end of woods carrer

The first point was simply right. End of. Els and Singh are nowhere near the level of Player, Palmer and Watson.

Woods won't win another Major. I think that is wishful thinking for Tiger fans.

Simply saying that Tiger was more dominant than Jack is tosh. Tiger is in a downturn and I doubt he will win a Major in his 40's.

no simply wrong. Amazing players in a very unlucky period- due to tigers dominance.

i am no tiger fan- But saying he wont wion a major is crazy- Bat crazy tbh.

he was much more dominant than jack in his ten year spell, cant say it anymore times. The records speak for themselves.. I am not talking about a life time carrer which nicklaus clearly wins out on. Tiger hasnt even finished his!!

mystiroakey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:legend

first point = simply wrong

2nd yes correct= didnt say he didnt. however woods is still going

3rd- he was still dominant over his ten year spell in a way that beats any nicklaus 10 year spell- that was my point.. You bringing up nicklaus 25 year record is only proving the point. saying he was hardly dominant is kinda ridiculas..

The point is that its a very tough call between the two- espeically as woods is still going.. I cant spllt them myself. Its something that will be easier to do at the end of woods carrer

The first point was simply right. End of. Els and Singh are nowhere near the level of Player, Palmer and Watson.

Woods won't win another Major. I think that is wishful thinking for Tiger fans.

Simply saying that Tiger was more dominant than Jack is tosh. Tiger is in a downturn and I doubt he will win a Major in his 40's.

no simply wrong. Amazing players in a very unlucky period- due to tigers dominance.

i am no tiger fan- But saying he wont wion a major is crazy- Bat crazy tbh.

he was much more dominant than jack in his ten year spell, cant say it anymore times. The records speak for themselves.. I am not talking about a life time carrer which nicklaus clearly wins out on. Tiger hasnt even finished his!!

can't wait for the Tiger debate.

Mike Selig wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"I agree with Dummy's claim that basketball is a far more global sport than golf, certainly I am sure the numbers are bigger, and it is a genuine presence in more countries as well. "

Not sure how anyone can come to that conclusion.. Golf is one of the most played sports in the world(participation levels) and has countless players from countless countries.. Golf is one of the top global sports around. Basketball is played alot yes i agree and is global- however there isnt many major professional set ups- It is big on an amatuer scale globally.

I don't know about the figures, but golf for me is only really a major sport in the UK and ex-colonies, and Spain. Basketball is a major sport in latin America in a way which golf IMO isn't, and certainly southern and eastern Europe, and parts of Asia (including China). Put this way, where would you say golf is a bigger sport than basketball? UK and Ireland, South Africa, maybe New Zealand. Where is basketball the bigger sport? Even granting the US as a tie (it isn't IMO) you have South and East Europe (the likes of Spain, France, Italy, Russia, Lithuania, etc.), China and most Asian countries (Korea say), then the likes of Argentina and so on.

i think its best to say very even on a global scale(participation).. however much more global professionals out there for golf at a top level. The amount of players ranked in the top say 200 would include way more players from different countries in golf as oppossed to basketball

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:legend

first point = simply wrong

2nd yes correct= didnt say he didnt. however woods is still going

3rd- he was still dominant over his ten year spell in a way that beats any nicklaus 10 year spell- that was my point.. You bringing up nicklaus 25 year record is only proving the point. saying he was hardly dominant is kinda ridiculas..

The point is that its a very tough call between the two- espeically as woods is still going.. I cant spllt them myself. Its something that will be easier to do at the end of woods carrer

The first point was simply right. End of. Els and Singh are nowhere near the level of Player, Palmer and Watson.

Woods won't win another Major. I think that is wishful thinking for Tiger fans.

Simply saying that Tiger was more dominant than Jack is tosh. Tiger is in a downturn and I doubt he will win a Major in his 40's.

Not sure how he can be in a downturn when he went from around 50 to 3 last year as his end of year ranking, thats just plain incorrect. He was much better last year than he was the year before. He can for sure win majors this year simply because IMO outside of McIlroy its very, very even and Woods is definitely one of the best of the bunch behind Rory who isn't like to win more than one or two himself.
Doesnt mean Woods will win more but Im be amazed if he isnt in the running for quite a few before he hangs up his clubs.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:legend

first point = simply wrong

2nd yes correct= didnt say he didnt. however woods is still going

3rd- he was still dominant over his ten year spell in a way that beats any nicklaus 10 year spell- that was my point.. You bringing up nicklaus 25 year record is only proving the point. saying he was hardly dominant is kinda ridiculas..

The point is that its a very tough call between the two- espeically as woods is still going.. I cant spllt them myself. Its something that will be easier to do at the end of woods carrer

The first point was simply right. End of. Els and Singh are nowhere near the level of Player, Palmer and Watson.

Woods won't win another Major. I think that is wishful thinking for Tiger fans.

Simply saying that Tiger was more dominant than Jack is tosh. Tiger is in a downturn and I doubt he will win a Major in his 40's.

no simply wrong. Amazing players in a very unlucky period- due to tigers dominance.

i am no tiger fan- But saying he wont wion a major is crazy- Bat crazy tbh.

he was much more dominant than jack in his ten year spell, cant say it anymore times. The records speak for themselves.. I am not talking about a life time carrer which nicklaus clearly wins out on. Tiger hasnt even finished his!!

can't wait for the Tiger debate.

its gonna be fireworks pal.. Lets hope he isnt up against your mate Fed or nadal or whoever you highly rate!!!!

mystiroakey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:legend

first point = simply wrong

2nd yes correct= didnt say he didnt. however woods is still going

3rd- he was still dominant over his ten year spell in a way that beats any nicklaus 10 year spell- that was my point.. You bringing up nicklaus 25 year record is only proving the point. saying he was hardly dominant is kinda ridiculas..

The point is that its a very tough call between the two- espeically as woods is still going.. I cant spllt them myself. Its something that will be easier to do at the end of woods carrer

The first point was simply right. End of. Els and Singh are nowhere near the level of Player, Palmer and Watson.

Woods won't win another Major. I think that is wishful thinking for Tiger fans.

Simply saying that Tiger was more dominant than Jack is tosh. Tiger is in a downturn and I doubt he will win a Major in his 40's.

no simply wrong. Amazing players in a very unlucky period- due to tigers dominance.

i am no tiger fan- But saying he wont wion a major is crazy- Bat crazy tbh.

he was much more dominant than jack in his ten year spell, cant say it anymore times. The records speak for themselves.. I am not talking about a life time carrer which nicklaus clearly wins out on. Tiger hasnt even finished his!!

can't wait for the Tiger debate.

its gonna be fireworks pal.. Lets hope he isnt up against your mate Fed or nadal or whoever you highly rate!!!!

All will be revealed. But I can say with guarantee that Tiger won't get my vote unless he has a weak field, like in his career

A really tough group but have gone for Nicklaus. Before Woods came along, Nicklaus was almost an outlier in terms of the number of major wins to the extent that Bradman was an outlier in terms of his batting average. Added to that are the number of times he came close to winning majors and the fact that he competed with everyone from Palmer through to Watson and then onto Norman and Ballesteros.

Plus, as the Jacklin putt story shows, he was a genuine sportsman and a true gent. Can you imagine Woods walking off the last green at Turnberry with his arms round Mickelson, if Mickelson had just beat Woods in the way that Watson had just beat Nicklaus in '77?

Jordan would be my second pick. Was lucky to see him play a few times and although he played in a great team at the Bulls, he was head and shoulders above everyone else and better than any other basketball player I've ever seen.

Joe Louis was a great heavyweight and was historically important as he was the first black heavyweight champion since the controversial Jack Johnson. However, he's second to Ali as the greatest heavyweight ever and would likely place outside the top 10 in most observers' lists of all time greatest boxers.

Court's record is impressive but to my half-assed analysis, she seemed to dominate a fairly weak era. Great record but not the greatest female tennis player of all time.

"Tiger won't get my vote unless he has a weak field, like in his career Smile"

smile away!!

weak field my harris

Voted for Nicklaus. Was hard to split him from Jordan so went with my initial instinct I had when I first saw the names.

Court sounds very good and underrated (I'd never even heard of her!) but I have doubts about the level of competition in women's tennis in that era.

Louis is one of the greats in boxing, but there seem to be quite a few who could rate above him within his own sport.

Mike just a few other points re golf global participation. It truely isnt just a colonial game.. It truely is played everywhere and certain countries that you may not realise that play it on a large scale(non colonial) are below

Switzerland, argentina, norway, italy, spain, japan, korea,germany, denmark, holland to name a few

and i am very sure china are embrasing it to the max as well as are india in the middle class up communities.. We have also had top players from random countreis like figi( VJ singh) as well..

Still haven't forgiven Jordan for Space Jam.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Still haven't forgiven Jordan for Space Jam.

Did you want the Mon-stars to win?

No-one standing up for Joe Louis?

Just the summary of his career suggests he should be a contender in this process to me:

"Joseph Louis Barrow (May 13, 1914 – April 12, 1981), better known as Joe Louis, was an American professional boxer and the World Heavyweight Champion from 1937 to 1949. He is considered to be one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Nicknamed the Brown Bomber, Louis helped elevate boxing from a nadir in popularity in the post-Jack Dempsey era by establishing a reputation as an honest, hardworking fighter at a time when the sport was dominated by gambling interests. Louis' championship reign lasted 140 consecutive months, during which he participated in 27 championship fights, 26 championship fights during his reign; the 27th, against Ezzard Charles, was a challenge to Charles' Heavyweight title and so is not included in Louis' reign. All in all, Joe was victorious in 25 successful title defenses, a record for the heavyweight division. In 2005, Louis was ranked as the #1 heavyweight of all-time by the International Boxing Research Organization, and was ranked #1 on The Ring's list of the 100 Greatest Punchers of All-Time.

Louis' cultural impact was felt well outside the ring. He is widely regarded as the first African American to achieve the status of a nationwide hero within the United States, and was also a focal point of anti-Nazi sentiment leading up to and during World War II.He also was instrumental in integrating the game of golf, breaking the sport's color barrier in America by appearing under a sponsor's exemption in a PGA event in 1952.

Detroit's Joe Louis Arena, home of the Detroit Red Wings of the National Hockey League, and the Forest Preserve District of Cook County's Joe Louis "The Champ" Golf Course, situated south of Chicago in Riverdale, IL, are named in his honor."

sodhat wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Still haven't forgiven Jordan for Space Jam.

Did you want the Mon-stars to win?

I did indeed.

Joe Louis is a true great but he's up against it in this group, and probably comes out third for me. Against two of the greatest in their respective sports, and he would generally be lower down in his own P4P rankings. Truly great champion and a great bloke by all accounts. There is a statue of him in Caesars Palace in Las Vegas for some reason. That's a side note though.

Ouch, welcome to the group of death. Think even Gavin Hastings would struggle to get out of this one. Louis had a phenomenal reign but doesnt make many people's top 10 boxing goats. Court's record is spectacular, but I'm not convinced by level of competition.

For me it's a straight bun fight between the golden bear and air Jordan. I love golf and don't have much time for basketball, but jordan made me watch it for a while. a phenomenal athlete with outlandish talent and a true transcender. Nicklaus on the other hand was such a tremendous competitor. Both would be nailed on top 10 for this, but jordan probably is one of a handful who probably deserves serious consideration for the whole thing... And gets my vote.

Yeah, because Jack had really rubbish players in his era like Palmer, Watson, Miller, Trevino, Player, Jacklin etc.

I would think there has been plenty of Golfers who have taken up the sport because of Tiger. This, as well as his amazing record makes him a top tenner, IMO.

both are top 5'ers in my mind..

the curve of golf participation,evolution in mind body, global reach and tech(better tech = leveling field)(these days anyone from a top 100 ranking can win a decent golf event) means it is more than likely that tigers field is tougher. but jacks was still very decent and add to that his overall better record i cant pick between them..

the end of this debate is gonna be very tough thats all i know but for now(especially due to the fact that 2 go thorugh)- its been pretty easy..

A lot of this obviously depends what group you get.

the curve of golf participation,evolution in mind body, global reach and tech(better tech = leveling field)(these days anyone from a top 100 ranking can win a decent golf event) means it is more than likely that tigers field is tougher. but jacks was still very decent and add to that his overall better record i cant pick between them..

The technology point can work both ways though. It was a damn sight harder to control a golf ball 40/50 years ago than it is today. Smaller sweet spots, no corrective balancing technology in the shaft or in the head and golf balls that naturally flew shorter distances means that it could be argued that skill levels needed to be higher in Nicklaus' hey-day.

SFW yes you can argue that way. My argument suggests that point anyway.

However when you have a leveler playing field with higher participation what it suggests is that competition will become tougher.. IE more players will be able to win an event.

Golf is very different to most sports in this regard.. Many players can win from 200/1 in the beting stakes and thjat isnt a shock for example.

To dominate in a sport like tennis is easier in a way- if your the best you should be able to win more.. In a game like gofl where we have fileds of 100 plus going at it then it can be very tough as the best in the world to keep winning, and more so when the playing field is more levelled.

Point is- to become no.1 in golf is no harder than to become no.1 in tennis. However to become dominant could be argued harder in golf as the no.1 player. Look at luke donald for example- Immensly consitant-and a deserved no.1 for when he was. But to beat fields of 100 plus week in week out is so tough. But he would finish top 10 every week.. That is why i feel tigers and nicklauses feets as so amazing, not only were they no.1's but also dominant in winning!!

superflyweight wrote:

the curve of golf participation,evolution in mind body, global reach and tech(better tech = leveling field)(these days anyone from a top 100 ranking can win a decent golf event) means it is more than likely that tigers field is tougher. but jacks was still very decent and add to that his overall better record i cant pick between them..

The technology point can work both ways though. It was a damn sight harder to control a golf ball 40/50 years ago than it is today. Smaller sweet spots, no corrective balancing technology in the shaft or in the head and golf balls that naturally flew shorter distances means that it could be argued that skill levels needed to be higher in Nicklaus' hey-day.

I pretty much agree with that.

Equipment/Conditions homognenisation does not equate to higher quality in talent.

"Equipment/Conditions homognenisation does not equate to higher quality in talent."

no it doesnt and in fact can be argued that there is less skill. However the point here is becoming dominant in a leveller/larger playing field can be argued as a harder feet as the no.1 in your field..

We are trying to work out the true GOAT.. If any of these goats were not a no.1 in there sport - we can not surely argue for them. Being a NO.1 is a basic minimum.. Dominance is the key. And we need to try and work out who was more dominant in different eras- this is some ask. But we need to apply logic to that somehow..

You're argument for Woods ahead of Nicklaus in their respective eras is based on homogenisation of equipment. The true test of any talent is to be able to perform ahead of the group. Like SWF said it was harder to hit with greater precision in Jack's day than Tiger's. That in itself suggests the skill set required to compete in those days was high. So when your argument for the likes of Els and Singh being ahead of players like Player, Palmer and Watson based on homogenisation is quite baffling.