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

First topic message reminder :

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.

no thats not my argument and secondly i am not arguing for woods either. I cant split them,

I am making points- with no bias. To try and get an open mnded outlook.

SWF's point is something we all know about and tbh has no bearing on the point i am making. It goes much deeper- The main argument to suggest for tiger is that the playing field is so much larger and all competitors are in a position to hit the ball long true and straight based on improvements in tech, over just skill .So to become dominant in an era that is easier to become decent at a sport it could be seen as harder to truely take the game to another level.
I also have not once argued els and singh over Palmer and watson so if you wouldnt mind stop making stuff up. Its kinda getting ridiculas know..

I said that tiger had Some true great players in his dominant spell- Players that could have become legends if it wasnt for tigers dominance. I have not once mentioned the others on here- I just suggested your point that there were 100% much better is ludiucrous- which it is!

This is what I said earlier:

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.

To which you replied:

first point = simply wrong

So please don't talk crap.

As you say. Getting ridiculas

When Tiger was winning majors he didn't have the competition that he has today. I'd argue that Nicklaus had greater competition tbh. It's not that Nicklaud had more players to beat, but the calibre of his rivals was greater than the Singhs, Els's etc that Tiger faced down and beat.

All you have done is highlight your ignoarnce there pal..

I havent argued for or against - just said your definitive outlook is simple not true- which it isnt..

I see Tiger is the hot topic today, and he's not even in this Group...what about that Margaret Court eh? Some career that woman had!

It's not totally unreasonable to assume that Els, Singh and/or Mickelson would have picked up a few more majors if Tiger hadn't been around but the same applies to Nicklaus' contemporaries.

Without Jack:

Would Palmer have become a spent force quite so quickly?
Would Player have added another title or two?
Would Trevino have won more than 6 majors?
Would men like Johhny Miller have acquired the number of majors that their talent suggested they would?

Azzy Mahmood wrote:When Tiger was winning majors he didn't have the competition that he has today. I'd argue that Nicklaus had greater competition tbh. It's not that Nicklaud had more players to beat, but the calibre of his rivals was greater than the Singhs, Els's etc that Tiger faced down and beat.

firstly and something that needs to be understood is that tiger is a completly different player than he was. Id say if his handicap was plus 8 before its gone done a full 3 shots today to a plus 5..

secondly tigers playing field strength overall was much bigger than nicklauses was- lets forget the big names for a second. But the fact is truely a 100 players can win an event in tigers era, whereas in nicklauses era less could have won..

Arguing competition strengths back in nicklauses day over woods isnt significant- becuse you are basing it on there records.. Records that may not have been acheived if you had an even better player in that day than nicklaus.. These players may or may not have had only 4 majors in woods era.. Pmick may have had 12 in jacks..

Court was a fine player indeed. So much is overlooked in the amateur days and they didn't even have the luxury of tiebreakers or MTO's. I certainly wouldn't have relished playing in those days. It's viewed by many I speak to that the pro era improved the standards which tends to take the gloss of the some of the players achievements in the past.

Personally Ive always found something about Nicklaus a bit irritating, maybe its the voice. But mainly its the level of sycophancy towards him from golf fans (and to be fair Watson, Palmer etc) that puts me off. All the long goodbyes at the Open and Msters, the last walk (again) down the 18th, grown men sobbing etc etc. Gets a bit tedious after a while.

superflyweight wrote:It's not totally unreasonable to assume that Els, Singh and/or Mickelson would have picked up a few more majors if Tiger hadn't been around but the same applies to Nicklaus' contemporaries.

Without Jack:

Would Palmer have become a spent force quite so quickly?
Would Player have added another title or two?
Would Trevino have won more than 6 majors?
Would men like Johhny Miller have acquired the number of majors that their talent suggested they would?

spot on

Can we not exclude the ghastly nine chinned Woods from this competition. He's such a pr1ck that I'm not sure I can tolerate the championing that whoever is going to write the article is going to get. We'll all drown in a sea of sycophancy.

SR it needs to be discussed to highlight how good nicklaus was..,

The problem i have is that no one is bringing up a competitor to Jordon.. Do we not know enough about basketball!!

Diggers wrote:Personally Ive always found something about Nicklaus a bit irritating, maybe its the voice. But mainly its the level of sycophancy towards him from golf fans (and to be fair Watson, Palmer etc) that puts me off. All the long goodbyes at the Open and Msters, the last walk (again) down the 18th, grown men sobbing etc etc. Gets a bit tedious after a while.

same.. And the giving the putt to jacklin speaks out to me that he thought he was bigger than the ryder cup over sportsmanship tbh!

There are lots of amazing basket ball players Mysti, Shaquille O'Neal for one and Koby Bryany and Lebron James. Going back a bit Magic Johnson was a massive name, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar another.
Problem is I dont think anyone puts them in the same category as Jordan who kind of stands alone a bit like Waybe Gretzky in ice hockey.

And to anyone that thinks Jack would have given the putt if it was for a europe win over a draw, needs to rethink..

USA still retained the cup

Like Diggers says, there isn't really anyone that people put on the same pedestal that Jordan occupies.

There are big names, greats like Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant and so forth. The only one that consistently seems to be on the same level is Chamberlain. Even then by consensus people seem to accept that Jordan is the greatest they've seen so far.

Well Cockend Woods did even worse, he gave Molinari a putt which meant Europe WON

mystiroakey wrote:SR it needs to be discussed to highlight how good nicklaus was..,

The problem i have is that no one is bringing up a competitor to Jordon.. Do we not know enough about basketball!!

I suppose Shaq O'Neill is probably the main one. Have I even spelt that right? I'm probably like a lot of others on here and can name less than ten basketball players. 3 in my case, Jordan, Shaq and Magic Johnson. Its a UK site so no surprise really, would be good to hear from anyone knowledgable though!

Diggers wrote:There are lots of amazing basket ball players Mysti, Shaquille O'Neal for one and Koby Bryany and Lebron James. Going back a bit Magic Johnson was a massive name, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar another.
Problem is I dont think anyone puts them in the same category as Jordan who kind of stands alone a bit like Waybe Gretzky in ice hockey.

yes but all the same if we had more yanks on here i am sure we would get a better outlook..

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:There are lots of amazing basket ball players Mysti, Shaquille O'Neal for one and Koby Bryany and Lebron James. Going back a bit Magic Johnson was a massive name, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar another.
Problem is I dont think anyone puts them in the same category as Jordan who kind of stands alone a bit like Waybe Gretzky in ice hockey.

yes but all the same if we had more yanks on here i am sure we would get a better outlook..

This Canadian says we're fine as we are, thanks

ahhhy you canadian..

So will you be championing Wayne Gretskey??

Can we really champion anyone who wears dress shoes, dress trousers a sweater and who walks everywhere whilst his clubs are carried for him as a "GOAT"

mystiroakey wrote:ahhhy you canadian..

So will you be championing Wayne Gretskey??

As if Gretzky NEEDS championing

We'll see how the tourney goes, if he's in it, and they need someone to do a piece, I'll consider it.

super_realist wrote:Can we really champion anyone who wears dress shoes, dress trousers a sweater and who walks everywhere whilst his clubs are carried for him as a "GOAT"

well of course we can..

super_realist wrote:Can we really champion anyone who wears dress shoes, dress trousers a sweater and who walks everywhere whilst his clubs are carried for him as a "GOAT"

Yes we can. If he plays the sport better than anyone else ever has (which in my opinion he didn't/doesn't).

VTR wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:SR it needs to be discussed to highlight how good nicklaus was..,

The problem i have is that no one is bringing up a competitor to Jordon.. Do we not know enough about basketball!!

I suppose Shaq O'Neill is probably the main one. Have I even spelt that right? I'm probably like a lot of others on here and can name less than ten basketball players. 3 in my case, Jordan, Shaq and Magic Johnson. Its a UK site so no surprise really, would be good to hear from anyone knowledgable though!

Hey, dont forget Alton Byrd, the one guy everyone remembers from the back in the day when UK basketball used to be on C4 every week. Only 5 9", same height as me (on a good day).

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

super_realist wrote:Can we really champion anyone who wears dress shoes, dress trousers a sweater and who walks everywhere whilst his clubs are carried for him as a "GOAT"

Yes we can. If he plays the sport better than anyone else ever has (which in my opinion he didn't/doesn't).

Regardless of his tournament wins, his game is horrible to watch. Seve was far better to watch, and easily the most skillful and mercurial talent the game has had.

It is funny because the two sports I played most in my teens was basketball and golf. However there is/was no competitive structure at school level for basketball..from day one joing a golf club as a juniour you are straight away put in at a competitive level..

The athletic and skill level associated with basketball for me makes it one of the best sports out there.But at the same time I cant comment because I truely dont know enough about the game..

Diggers wrote:

VTR wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:SR it needs to be discussed to highlight how good nicklaus was..,

The problem i have is that no one is bringing up a competitor to Jordon.. Do we not know enough about basketball!!

I suppose Shaq O'Neill is probably the main one. Have I even spelt that right? I'm probably like a lot of others on here and can name less than ten basketball players. 3 in my case, Jordan, Shaq and Magic Johnson. Its a UK site so no surprise really, would be good to hear from anyone knowledgable though!

Hey, dont forget Alton Byrd, the one guy everyone remembers from the back in the day when UK basketball used to be on C4 every week. Only 5 9", same height as me (on a good day).

I haven't forgotten him, I've never heard of him! I wouldn't even need a postage stamp to write what I know about US sport on. Its a shame as they are good sports but I can't possibly follow any more sports, I'm full!

super_realist wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

super_realist wrote:Can we really champion anyone who wears dress shoes, dress trousers a sweater and who walks everywhere whilst his clubs are carried for him as a "GOAT"

Yes we can. If he plays the sport better than anyone else ever has (which in my opinion he didn't/doesn't).

Regardless of his tournament wins, his game is horrible to watch. Seve was far better to watch, and easily the most skillful and mercurial talent the game has had.

certainly my fav player to watch live, but no i wouldnt put him above certain players in reagrds to skill level..

my top players to watch at there peak(that i have personally seen).. tiger(the striking and aura was just out of this world(watching on tv has become an absoloute bore though), seve, norman, daley, poulter, faldo(p;ersonal choice due to being the top engilsh player when i grew up), cabrerra and payne stewart.

To add though Seve was only one of the best players to watch because ofhow wild his driving was.. But wow the recovery shots he played was unreal.. But then at the same time. Check out some of the ones woods has played.. Unbelivable as well. Seve was natural, like norman(normans backspin and ball strinking- OMG). Faldo was the mechanical player that won more though and overall better in that era.

Jack Nicklaus gets my vote here. In my eyes he is the greatest golfer of all-time. His major wins were spread across decades and had longevity that I doubt we will see from Tiger. He had a charisma as well and really endeared himself to the fans - just look at the emotional farewell he got at St. Andrews a year or two ago.

For once I agree with Mysti!!

Norman's swing, just to die for!

CaledonianCraig wrote:Jack Nicklaus gets my vote here. In my eyes he is the greatest golfer of all-time. His major wins were spread across decades and had longevity that I doubt we will see from Tiger. He had a charisma as well and really endeared himself to the fans - just look at the emotional farewell he got at St. Andrews a year or two ago.

respect over love.

legendkillarV2 wrote:For once I agree with Mysti!!

Norman's swing, just to die for!

A swing to die for.......bottle to laugh at. The Choke King.

legendkillarV2 wrote:For once I agree with Mysti!!

Norman's swing, just to die for!

truely a golden era for european(with an added aussie) golf fans...

the competition was great because we had so many top players that were so similar in overall ability- yet totally different in style

Diggers wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:For once I agree with Mysti!!

Norman's swing, just to die for!

A swing to die for.......bottle to laugh at. The Choke King.

Very much so. No idea how he found such bottle.

found bottle, you mean lost it!!

he has a special kind of bottle.

yeah it was probally spiked.. Drunk from the same one as Jimmy white and the england penalty takers

Another interesting group.

Michael Jordan - I don't know much about Basketball, and so in a team sport like it is find it hard to judge how good he actually way. Therefore, I can't really vote for him at this stage (in the later rounds when people are making more of a case this may change)

Joe Louis - On the face of it a great of boxing, but nobody really sticking up for him

Margaret Court - A true legend of her sport. In this tough group she just misses out, but a shame that less people have voted for her. Even in a largely amateur era to be the best for such a long period of time is incredible.

Jack Nicklaus - My vote today goes to Nicklaus. For me he is Golf's GOAT (just). He played in a great era of golf against many others who would have a case to be included in the 64 (Palmer, Player, Watson). Even in that era, and in a sport where the best don't always win (just look at how many different major winners there have been in the last decade), he won 18 majors. In tennis a lot is made of different surfaces, and in Golf there is a similar distinction between the finely mown and perfectly prepared Augusta National, and the often less perfect Open courses which are often played on in high winds. Nicklaus won the Masters 6 times and the Open 3 times.

Woods wouldn't even be 2nd or 3rd or 4th in my golf GOAT. For one, I don't like judging people before their careers are over (or near over). Secondly, I don't think he had the same opposition. Thirdly, he's not a very nice man, and has some major blots on his copy book (even if we discount his affairs which aren't relevant).

My Dad was a golf photograher, and until recently my Mum was selling his pictures to newspapers, magazines etc. The one golfer who sold more pictures than anybody was Seve. He had an incredible impact on the game, and had a style which arguably brought about a revival in a game which was in decline, as well as bringing about the changes that made the Ryder Cup what it is today. So he'd be my number two.

Voted for Jack Nicklaus, just ahead of Jordan for me simply because Nicklaus' field was far greater.

Michael Jordan is the greatest player in NBA history as of date - of that there is no doubt. There are, of course, select names in the Pantheon of The Greats that belong in the same sentence, but none have combined electric scoring, jaw-dropping play and championship pedigree with modern physicality, the way that MJ did with the Chicago Bulls.

Wilt Chamberlain was a statistical anomaly. In the 1961-62 season, Wilt averaged a staggering 50.4 ppg. To put it in the appropriate context, no player - other than Chamberlain himself, who averaged 44.8 ppg the following year - has ever broken the 40 ppg barrier in an NBA season. On March 2nd 1962, Chamberlain recorded 'The 100-Point Game' against the New York Knicks, in Hershey, Pennsylvania. It is a sign of how legendary the performance and number is, that some speculate, given that the game took place prior to the TV-Era, that the record was in fact due to a scoring mishap, attributing it to an overzealous scoreboard operator posting Wilt's tally as 40 instead of 4 just prior to HT. 5 of the top 7 all-time ppg seasonal averages are held by Chamberlain and 15 of the top 21 single-game point tallies are held by the former Globe Trotter.

But Wilt only won 2 NBA Titles and just 1 Finals MVP gong. Bill Russell is the most successful Champion in basketball history, winning an astonishing 11 NBA Championships, but did so in a by-gone age, with all 11 Chips coming between 1957-69. From more recent times, Magic Johnson was the driving force behind the 'Showtime' Lakers of the 1980s, leading the LA-based franchise to 5 Titles and laying the foundations for the 'Hollywood Era' that we see at Staples Center today, but career averages of 19.5 points and 7 rebounds aren't quite juicy enough for the very biggest dogs in this yard. When Magic joined the Lakers, he said the biggest draw for doing so was to play alongside The Sky Prince, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Kareem was a scoring machine, the type of which hadn't been seen since Wilt, and plundered an all-time high 38,387 points in NBA basketball. Kareem's 'Sky Hook' is the most potent offensive weapon in basketball history, described by most that felt its' wrath as 'unblockable'. Kareem picked up 6 Chips and 2 Finals MVPs but the game still hadn't been 'physicalized' or 'globalized' to the modern degree.

The Black Mamba - Kobe Bryant, is the closest thing to Jordan in a modern context. Kobe is a prolific scorer, averaging 25.5 points across his career and notching a 'modern record' 81 versus the Toronto Raptors in 2006. With 5 Titles and 2 Finals MVPs to his name, The Black Mamba has an impressive resume and became the youngest player to break the 30K career points barrier. Alas, Kobe has never 'reached for that brass ring' and has had to make do with perennially living in the shadow of another. The first 3 of Kobe's Chips were claimed alongside the dominant presence of Shaquille O'Neal, with the 330-pounder picking up a 3-Peat of Finals MVPs. In the post-Shaq Era, Kobe was quickly displaced as the 'Face of the NBA' by a certain individual.

So you may all be wondering, can no one touch Jordan? Well in terms of a body of work, at this point, the answer is 'no'.

But purely from a talent perspective, pound-for-pound, there has never been a more gifted player in the NBA than, The Chosen One - LeBron James. 'King James' is World Sport's premier 'Sports Entertainer'. 6'8, 260, an electrifying offensive force and unbreakable defensive wall. A locomotive with career averages of 28-7-7, LeBron is the greatest overall statistical out-putter in the global era of the NBA, even out-stripping Jordan in terms of stat-lines. LeBron's 40-18-9 performance in Game 4 of this year's Conference SFs, on the road vs the Indiana Pacers, was the best stat-line in the play-offs for 51 years. In Game 6 of the Conference Finals vs the Boston Celtics, with the Heat facing elimination at 2-3 down, LeBron produced a superlative-exhausting 45 point-15 rebound performance that many observers believe was 'the first time that one man has beaten five'.

In a historic year for sport, LeBron James was our pick for the best athlete of 2012, picking up his 3rd MVP Award, posting averages of 30-10-6 in the play-offs, leading the Miami Heat to the NBA Title and claiming the Finals MVP, plus winning an Olympic Gold Medal to boot. So yes, Michael Jordan is the best.... for now.

I've also gone for Nicklaus. Golf's GOAT for me, just ahead of Player and Ballesteros (fine tribute post, Shelsey).

Louis particularly unlucky to miss out. Some good punches thrown on his behalf earlier in the day by Hoggy.

Court was a very good player but, as others have said, didn't have to face a large number of credible opponents.

Inadequate appreciation of basketball plus a feeling that Jordan has rather sold himself out in recent years scuppers any chance he might have had.

Have no love for american sports like Basketball or American Football so wont even consider Jordan.

As a keen boxing fan i'm slightly perplexed at Louis' inclusion here, he's not up with the truly truly greats of the sport so can only assume he's been included based on his name rather than on merit.

Nicklaus by a mile today.

"
Woods wouldn't even be 2nd or 3rd or 4th in my golf GOAT. For one, I don't like judging people before there careers are over (or near over). Secondly, I don't think he had the same opposition."

thats fine however the field strength has improved , maybe not the individuals- but add the qualities of the top 100 or so and woods field strength is leagues above....

But you are right judging him before his carrer has ended isnt the best thing to be doing.

But then it truely shows his acheivment giving the fact he is up there and still has time.

Seve as I have said many times is one of my fav golfers of all time , as he is many's. However no disrespect but he shouldnt be in anyones top 3 for golf.. If he are talking about GOAT's..

He wasnt even the GOAT in his peak- norman, seve and faldo used to swap and change the no.1 spot.

I think it would be fair to say all 3 were the top golfers between the years 86-91(no one else occupied the no.1 spot- however we must remember to seves credit that there was no offical ranking pre 86).but all the same all equally share the same accolades as seve..

I know many others are saying that woods 10 year spell isnt relevant, because nicklauses spell spanned over 25 odd years, However in seves case his major winning time line only lasted 9 years(only 5 to his name btw)

That may seem harsh , and i am a massive fan of his, but it truely is the case. Not sure if all this love is coming from the fact that he tragically died early or not..

clearly Seve has transended the sport and desires accolades for that- However i am very sure that most golfers and followers and pros alike would almost find it very hard to put him in any top 10. as a fav sure- well up there. As a goat- just about top 15 for me.

BTW every day we have had alot of arguments against sportsmen because they are not likable. I find it very strange tbh. And truely should never ever have any bearing on greatness..

mystiroakey wrote:BTW every day we have had alot of arguments against sportsmen because they are not likable. I find it very strange tbh. And truely should never ever have any bearing on greatness..

Look forward to your final between Ben Johnson and Hansie Cronje ....

guildfordbat wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:BTW every day we have had alot of arguments against sportsmen because they are not likable. I find it very strange tbh. And truely should never ever have any bearing on greatness..

Look forward to your final between Ben Johnson and Hansie Cronje ....

errr.. what have cheats got to do with this?

how about the people that have been slated instead that are actually in this..

Maradona(actually a horrible character who cheated- yet actually didnt get the same flack as the two after!!), Taylor, woods(not in a heat yet but all the same!), etc

Hanse Cronje was a likeable bloke, you just wouldn't have trusted him to mind your wallet.