v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 8

First topic message reminder :

Yesterday’s group was another two horse race with could have gone either way, the voting was split between early candidates to win the entire competition footballing icon Pele and arguably the best pound for pound boxer of all time Sugar Ray Robinson. Pele eventually finished in first place with 38 votes and Robinson qualified in second place with 35 votes, leaving Michael Schumacher and Stephen Hendry exiting the tournament at the first attempt.

Today’s group sees Tennis, Track and Field, golf and Snooker compete for your votes.

We have the two participants championed today with articles written by forum members, so please feel free to submit your own argument below for the one 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

Roger Federer- Tennis- Championed by emancipator

2001, Wimbledon Centre Court; defending and seven time Wimbledon champion 'Pistol' Pete Sampras, the man who had reigned at the top of men's tennis for close to a decade and considered by many to be unbeatable on this hallowed turf is at crisis point. At two sets all, 5-6 and 15-40 down in the deciding set, the ruthlessly efficient Sampras is facing match point.

It had been five years since anyone had managed to beat him in this tournament. His opponent a relatively unknown challenger in the form of Swiss teenager, 19 year old Roger Federer, is considered to be a prodigious but erratic talent. He seems to have all the shots but doesn't know quite how to put them together. His temperament has also been questionable. Today, however, things appear to be different. For nearly four hours the two protagonists have battled. To the surprise of the enthralled on lookers it was Federer who took the opening set. But Sampras hit back as any great champion is expected to do. The audience fully expected him to motor on and over power the youngster, except, as the match wore on, it appeared as if the Swiss was the one getting stronger, whilst Sampras appeared more and more uneasy. By the time the match score had reached two sets all, the tension had become palpable. The Centre Court crowd knew that there were no longer any favourites in this match; this would be a dog-fight, survival of the fittest - and the bravest; reputations would count for nothing.

On countless occasions throughout his career Sampras had bailed himself out of tight spots with his booming, swerving, pin-point accurate serve; the serve universally acclaimed as the greatest in history. He wipes sweat from his brow, places the ball against the racket, looks up, coils himself into the releasing position, then with a seamlessly fluid motion he serves a missile out wide to Federer's forehand and charges towards the net. Federer takes a step towards the ball and unleashes a forehand that whizzes past Sampras for a clean winner. He crumples to his knees in disbelief and celebration. A split-second of silence is followed by an eruption as the Centre Court crowd rise as one to salute a new King. The BBC commentator proclaims the birth of a new star. It is indeed the dawn of a new era.. The Federer era.

Looking back it was a poignant moment in sporting history. The one occasion on which the two greatest champions of the modern era were to play each other, and as fate would have it, on the court most beloved to either of them. It was a reminder of days gone by and a harbinger of those yet to come.

It would be another couple of years before Federer would really hit the heights, and what heights! 17 grand slams from 24 finals, including 7 Wimbledon titles. Over 300 weeks as the number one player in the world, including 237 consecutive weeks at the top spot. 6 World Tour Final victories from 8 finals. 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals; 34 consecutive grand slam quarter finals (and counting); a run of 24 consecutive finals victories in all tournaments, 65 consecutive match wins on grass, 56 consecutive match wins on hardcourt, five consecutive Wimbledon and US Open titles, a run of 18 grand slam finals out of 19 grand slam tournaments played, 21 masters titles.. and on and on.. all of them records, many of them by a considerable distance. There are at least half a dozen Wikipedia articles dedicated to the career achievements and compiled statistics/records of Roger Federer. Peruse them at your own leisure - if you've got a few days to spare that is

But what makes Federer really stand out amongst the legends of tennis and indeed any sport is his unique game. Everything about his game is beautiful, everything is seemingly effortless. He glides around the court unhurried, with uncanny footwork and balletic grace. A sixth sense for being at the right place at the right time. He plays with perfect technique. Like an artist, Federer creates masterpieces; the court is his canvas. At heart, he is an attacking player who plays the game the right way; always looking to seize the initiative, to hit outright winners, to win spectacularly and brilliantly. He can hit every shot in the book. But he can also grind and play great defense. If it is so required he can switch to plan b, c, d, whatever it takes. In a sport dominated by super athletes, Federer at his peak was as fast and durable as they come. Modern tennis is played predominantly from the baseline (a stark contrast to the tennis of Sampras's heydey which was mainly serve and volley based, with the majority of points won at the net) and Roger Federer can play the baseline game as well as anyone. But he can do so much more. He can mix spins and slices, lobs and dropshots, powerful winners and delicate touch, from the back of the court or at the net. It is this unique fusion of power, skill and aesthetic grace, that has captured the imagination of millions of fans around the world. Federer doesn't just win, he wins with style.

When Federer established himself as the number one player in the world in late 2003 people were already starting to whisper about this potential phenomenon. He emerged from a group of fantastically talented youngsters: Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Haas, to establish himself as THE man to beat. As the years rolled by he gathered steam, and the initial curiosity that follows the emergence of any great talent - the excitement of thinking about all the possibilites - was replaced by amazement then incredulity and finally awe. As Andre Agassi said, 'Federer was the guy who came and took the game light years ahead.' He looked like something from the future. The American media even dubbed him 'Darth Federer' (in reference to his super-natural gifts and black clothing) at the 2007 US Open. More than anything else, the Roger Federer phenomenon turned the sport of tennis, which had been suffering a slump in popularity following the years of serve dominated play, into one of the most popular spectator sports in the world. He was and remains to this day, although not to the same extent, a phenom. Or as David Foster Wallace wrote in the New York Times:

"Roger Federer is one of those rare, preternatural athletes who appear to be exempt, at least in part, from certain physical laws. Good analogues here include Michael Jordan, who could not only jump inhumanly high but actually hang there a beat or two longer than gravity allows, and Muhammad Ali, who really could “float” across the canvas and land two or three jabs in the clock-time required for one. There are probably a half-dozen other examples since 1960. And Federer is of this type — a type that one could call genius, or mutant, or avatar. He is never hurried or off-balance. The approaching ball hangs, for him, a split-second longer than it ought to. His movements are lithe rather than athletic. Like Ali, Jordan, Maradona, and Gretzky, he seems both less and more substantial than the men he faces. Particularly in the all-white that Wimbledon enjoys getting away with still requiring, he looks like what he may well (I think) be: a creature whose body is both flesh and, somehow, light." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (By the way - this article by Wallace entitled 'Roger Federer as a religious experience' is a great read)

Federer's style and success has allowed him to transcend the sport in a way that few sportsmen in history can match. He is a record four time winner of the prestigious Laureus Sportsman of the Year Award. In a recent poll conducted across 25 countries with 51,000 participants he was voted as the second most trusted person in the world after Nelson Mandela. During the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, Federer received the loudest cheer of the night when he carried the Swiss flag into the stadium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddojLWIjKK4 At the London Olympics Federer's pre-Olympic presser had more than 700 journalists, more than any other star at the games. He was mobbed by crowds during his recent tour of South America with political and sporting dignitaries (including Pele and Maradonna) feting him. He has the most impressive endorsement portfolio in all of sports including blue chip companies such as Nike, Mercedes-Benz (global ambassador), Wilson, Rolex, Credite Suisse, Gillette, Moet & Chandon etc.

But despite all the accolades Federer has remained a likeable, down to earth person. His fellow tennis professionals have voted him the winner of the annual Steffan Edberg Sportsmanship award a record eight times. He is the President of the ATP players council and in this capacity has campaigned for the benefit of all the players on the tour, including negotiating a fairer distribution of prize money for players who lose in the earlier rounds of the slams. The Roger Federer foundation is a charitable organisation with the stated mission of empowering children through education; it is involved in numerous projects throughout Africa.

It is incredible that with so many distractions (he's married with two young children to boot) Federer has still managed to stay at the top of such a global and competitive sport. As things stand he is the number 2 ranked player in the world and indeed was, just a few short months ago, the number one player in the world. Tennis has traditionally been a young man's sport but Roger Federer has redefined the parameters. I firmly believe that Federer is one of the outstanding candidates for the greatest sportsman of all time accolade. He fits all of the criteria: a sporting phenomenon, unmatched in his sport, an incredible record in a globally competitive sport which is both physical and skill-based, a global sporting icon who is one of the most popular sportsmen on the planet and a great role model, who plays hard but fair. But of course the Federer story is not over yet. He has declared his intention to play until the 2016 Olympic Games. There may yet be a few more pages to add to Wikipedia


Some quotes:

"[In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer" - Jimmy Connors

"He is the most naturally talented player I have ever seen in my life" - John McEnroe

"He moves like a whisper and executes like a wrecking ball" - Nick Bollettieri (legendary tennis coach)

"He is the most perfect machine I have ever seen playing tennis" - Diego Maradonna

"Federer is capable of playing shots that other players don't even think of" - Ivan Lendl

"We are witnessing history. This is the most dominant athlete on planet earth today" - Jim Courier (4 time grand slam champion)

"Federer is the best player in history - no other player has ever had so much quality" - Rafael Nadal

"Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground. That's the sign of a great champion." - Rod Laver

"He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them [other players], so many years; there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision." - Andre Agassi

"He's a real person. He's not an enigma. Off the court he's not trying to be somebody. If you met him at McDonald's and you didn't know who he was, you would have no idea that he's one of the best athletes in the world" - Andy Roddick

"Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's even from the same planet" - Novak Djokovic

emancipator

ps - For those of you who haven't seen the The Fed Express in action, the following video might give you some idea of what he's all about
http://vimeo.com/40765561

Tiger Woods- Golf- Championed by Adam D

"So far these GOAT debates have been fascinating reading. What sports are sports? How does a sportsman shine if they are part of a team? How can someone who is not athletically fit be considered a ""great"" sportsman? How can someone be considered the GOAT if they are not even the best in their sport?

Well all of these arguments could be levelled at Mr Woods to a certain extent, however, I will prove why all of these points in isolation do not matter to Tiger.

Tiger Woods is not just the greatest golfer of his generation, he is the greatest of all time. Whats that I hear you say? Jack Niklaus has won more?
Well for a start, he hasnt. Niklaus HAS won more Majors but not tournaments.

In fact, the person with the most tournament wins is Sam Snead who dominated from 1936 to 1965, clocking up 7 major wins. But I doubt he is going to grace this list anytime soon.

Lets get back to Niklaus vs Woods because lets face it, thats the golfing GOAT debate that will spring up. Now I like Niklaus and I like Woods, but which is better? There is only one way to find out....actually, its a matter of opinion and for me the reason why Woods outshines the Niklaus era is down to the talent pool around them.

Let me talk about that for a second. In Niklaus' era, we had the big names and historical superstars of the sport. In Woods era, we have Major winners such as Keegan Bradley and Zach Johnson. Whats my point you may ask as this is surely a selling point for Jack?

My point is that in the 60,70 and 80s, golf was dominated by a group of great players in a smaller pool. And that was down to the social class aspect of the sport. Fewer people played, and skill was the biggest factor in winning a tournament. Today, everyone is welcomed onto the many, many more courses around the world. And due to big hitting taking precedent over course management, the field has become much more even and full of depth.

Tigers dominance in a more scientific era of golf is that much more impressive. And its also the reason why he should be voted above the likes of Federer and Phil Taylor and Ronnie O'Sullivan. Tiger doesnt have to beat a single opponent on each day. He has won these tournaments by beating EVERY player over 4 days.

This is not a case of playing better than this rounds opponent but a case of playing better than every person in the competition. That is why his achievements should be considered above the other individual sports on this list.

So what has Tiger achieved?

At age 2, he appeared on TV putting against Bob Hope! At age three, he shot a 48 over nine holes over the Cypress Navy course. Before turning seven, Tiger won the Under Age 10 section of the Drive, Pitch, and Putt competition, held at the Navy Golf Course in Cypress, California.

In 1984 at the age of eight, he won the 9–10 boys' event, the youngest age group available, at the Junior World Golf Championships. He first broke 80 at age eight. He went on to win the Junior World Championships six times, including four consecutive wins from 1988 to 1991.

And THEN he went to college!

By the time he turned Pro in 1996, he had already amassed dozens of junior titles.

I am going to sum up his career in a very brief manner as the stats talk for themselves.

Woods has won 74 official PGA Tour events including 14 majors. He is 14–1 when going into the final round of a major with at least a share of the lead. He has been heralded as ""the greatest closer in history"" by multiple golf experts. He owns the lowest career scoring average and the most career earnings of any player in PGA Tour history.

He has spent the most consecutive and cumulative weeks atop the world rankings. He is one of five players (along with Gene Sarazen,Ben Hogan, Gary Player, and Jack Nicklaus) to have won all four professional major championships in his career, known as the Career Grand Slam, and was the youngest to do so. Woods is the only player to have won all four professional major championships in a row, accomplishing the feat in the 2000–2001 seasons.


On top of this he has another 38 European Tour wins and other worldwide tournaments.

Simply put, no one in the modern era has dominated the sport like Tiger. He has been so dominant that he won the US Open in 2008 on one leg (He was recovering from Knee surgery before the tournament and had to have major knee surgery afterwards).

Outside of his sporting achievements it has to be noted that Tiger Woods has transcended just playing the game. He has a successful video game franchise named after him - when was the last time anyone played Roger Federers Tennis 2013 or Jerry Rice American Football 2013?

The final thing I want to touch upon is his infidelity. Some may discount him for this very reason but that is ludicrous. However, we must remember that Tiger hasnt commited a crime. He hasnt taken drugs to cheat at his sport. He hasnt dodged a military draft or served jail time for serious crimes. He cheated on his wife (albeit on numerous occasions) which might make him less of a man but not a sporting great.

Tiger deserves to be the v2 GOAT.

Steve Davis OBE - Championed by VTR

A great sportsperson can be defined in a number of ways. We could have the great champion, someone who dominated their sport for a period. Or someone that had an incredibly long career at the top. Even someone who fundamentally changed the way their sport was played. It is certainly a rare specimen that can be classified as two let alone all three of these.

Growing up in the 80’s there was one name above all others that was synonymous with Snooker: Steve Davis. There were popular characters such as Alex Higgins and Jimmy White but only one great champion. Often mocked for being boring, Davis did his talking on the snooker table, taking apart opponents in a period of domination only approached since by Stephen Hendry.

I will come on to his record but let’s start with impact. Why was Davis considered boring? I think simply because he was the first player to really take a fully professional approach to snooker and recognise it for what it was: a growing sport where riches could be made. Is practicing so hard you leave nothing to chance really boring? Refusing to drink during matches boring? Playing with intensity? I would say not – and almost all players that have followed have realised that being an endearing character does not pay the bills and deliver silverware, it is only winning that will do that. Davis’ approach drastically improved the standard of the game, paving the way for the incredible level of play achieved by future greats such as Hendry, O’Sullivan and John Higgins.

So what of that record? Davis won 6 out of the 10 World Championships in the 1980’s. Add to that numerous other titles including several victories in The Masters and UK Championship and you can only be awestruck by his dominance and consistency. Even in rare defeat, Davis will be remembered. The 1985 final, watched by a UK TV audience of almost 20 million people in a beyond midnight finish went to the final black. Taylor won, Davis was gracious in defeat and certainly played his part in the greatest match ever. In what is likely to be his final tally, Davis has reached 41 ranking finals, winning 28 titles.

Snooker is not a physical pursuit but I would argue it is a young man’s game. Stephen Hendry, Davis’s main contender for the snooker GOAT won his last world title aged 30. A sport based on such precision naturally favours the undiminished motor skills of the younger player. Davis is unique in his longevity, and has only relatively recently showed signs of a terminal decline. Of course his period of domination is long over, but Davis has remained competitive well past the age of 45. Aged 48 Davis was still good enough to reach the UK Championship final in 2005 and had a season in the all-important Top 16 at the age of 50. He has the ability to qualify for major events to this day; the competitive instinct refuses to be extinguished. One of his greatest coups was in 2010 when he beat defending champion John Higgins to progress to the World Championship Quarter Finals. A huge shock no doubt but in some ways not that surprising: every player would have known that on his day this elder statesman still had the game to defeat them.

And finally back to that personality: Davis has a fantastic dry wit, makes time for the fans and provides analysis and commentary of the highest quality. The often vile British media with their hypocritical dual delight-and-disgust at sportspeople that make a mess of their lives will chip away at characters like Davis with the boring tag as a mark of their own disappointment. There’s no story to tell outside of his sporting excellence, Davis is a true class act on and off the baize.

The pioneer, the great champion, the evergreen. Davis is certainly all three.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Stella wrote:I'm no Tennis nut but did Bjorg face much of Lendl?

Yes he did. If you consider that Borg retired at 26 and that there are anly 4 yrs between the two.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=L018

Cheers. To be fair though, Lendl was nowhere near his best then.

Fed v tiger lol...

I am out of this one today.. It would have been fun - but to busy, and i dont think my heart can take it.. As long as tiger gets the second i am happy enough!!


Tiger is clearly a golfer that deserves to be amongst any ones top few GOATS so bear that in mind even if he is a pr@tt

Adam you make a good case btw.. Are people not reading what you say. He would be a very deserved V2 goat

Anyone who insists on being called "Tiger" is clearly some sort of pr1ck.

Easy tiger

SR can you stop bagging him. Your a golf fan- show abit of respect- The world knows you hate him, but you are not stupid you know he is one of very few GOAT contenders for golf

xx

my telling of for the day-BTW i have asked you a question on the anything goes thread..

He doesn't deserve any respect Oakey. Guys a total idiot.
a fat business mans "sport" shouldn't be in this anyway.

I don't like voting for people when they are still playing. However, both Federer and Woods have at least already achieved a lot.

When Nicklaus came up I argued that I don't have Woods in my top few golfers at this stage. Partly for character reasons, but partly because he didn't face tremendous opposition (on the level of Nicklaus), and partly because he's still playing and so doesn't have a legacy yet.

I love Federer but, again, I think he's too current. He was so good in his dominant years, and has done well to maintain the level he has since. However, I probably won't vote for him in the latter stages, even if I do today.

Gabreselassie - Good guy and a lot of good stuff, but not really in my top few athletes. I hope Jesse Owens, Seb Coe, Daley Thompson and Paavo Nurmi will come up soon.

Davis - A bit surprised to see him on the ballot. Does snooker really have 3 of the top 64 sportsmen of all time? If it does then he's the third best of them in spite of his world titles in the '80s. As Hoggy pointed out yesterday a snooker player would need 20 world titles for serious consideration.

So, overall, one of the weaker groups in my view.

" but partly because he didn't face tremendous opposition (on the level of Nicklaus), and partly because he's still playing and so doesn't have a legacy yet."

ok firstly the competition can easily be argued as tougher.. And i have

second even if he stopped tommorow his legacy would live for ages if not forever- second best major wins, best by a mile WGC wins, first black golfer to shine- brought millions of different classes into the game and took the game to another level, in terms of ball striking , clutch putting and fitness. also in his 10 year prime time- he dominated a truely gloabl game that cannot be compared by another.

What has race got to do with this Oakey, it's irrelevant. Vijay Singh predates him as a black man anyway.

He's also never been statistically the best putter, ball striker and is "fitness" is not even worth mentioning, as it's not fitness but conditioning.

Tiger by a fine margin for me. I have always had the up most respect for Federer's achievements in Tennis but in retrospect i believe Golf is a far harder sport to dominate than Tennis. A major in Golf is far harder to win than a Grand Slam in Tennis in my opinion. We have seen this over the last couple of years with the large number of random or unexpected winners in Golf. However i do believe you have to go back to 2009 before somebody outside the top four won a Tennis Slam? The fact that a golfer is competing against 100 other competitors plus both the course and the conditions makes it an incredibly tough task indeed. However compare this to a Tennis slam where the top seeds are barely challenged in the first few rounds and then can sit on the sidelines and watch a fellow competitor knock a serious rival out then i cannot see much of a comparison in terms of difficulty between the two. Surely nobody believes that Federer would have won as many slams as he has without the seeding system? Obviously i would never state that winning a Tennis grand slam is easy by any means but compared to a Golf major i do not think it's as to hard prevail. Therefore Tiger's achievements rank higher than Federer's in my opinion.

Seve_The_Great wrote:Tiger by a fine margin for me. I have always had the up most respect for Federer's achievements in Tennis but in retrospect i believe Golf is a far harder sport to dominate than Tennis. A major in Golf is far harder to win than a Grand Slam in Tennis in my opinion. We have seen this over the last couple of years with the large number of random or unexpected winners in Golf. However i do believe you have to go back to 2009 before somebody outside the top four won a Tennis Slam? The fact that a golfer is competing against 100 other competitors plus both the course and the conditions makes it an incredibly tough task indeed. However compare this to a Tennis slam where the top seeds are barely challenged in the first few rounds and then can sit on the sidelines and watch a fellow competitor knock a serious rival out then i cannot see much of a comparison in terms of difficulty between the two. Surely nobody believes that Federer would have won as many slams as he has without the seeding system? Obviously i would never state that winning a Tennis grand slam is easy by any means but compared to a Golf major i do not think it's as to hard prevail. Therefore Tiger's achievements rank higher than Federer's in my opinion.

Surely that shows Tennis is a more difficult sport to win a Slam in than Golf?

Not when there are only really five to six contenders, four being more realistic. In Golf, anyone can and does win.

Shelsey

I think your exclusion of still-active sportsmen is something of a rod for your own back in this case (and actually leaves you with no-one to vote for as both Davis and Gebreselassie are technically still active in their sports). Of the four though, I think only Woods is in a position where future results will significantly affect his sporting legacy - Federer is already the best in his field (although another win of the French Open wouldn't do his reputation any harm) while Davis and Gebresilassie are no longer seriously competetive at the elite level.

Disagree that it's a week group, as it has two guys (Federer and Woods) who dominated their respective sports in a way that no other men have.

Shelsey93 wrote:I don't like voting for people when they are still playing.

I very much share Shelsey's view above. There are always considerable difficulties and dangers involved in opting for someone when they are still playing their sport. Who knows how their career might end up? I think it is only fair to them and all to make a proper assessment after their retirement.

Steve Davis is generally being judged today on this thread as a decent snooker player who was a dominant force in the sport during the 1980s but is now a million miles from being our GOAT. In my view, that's entirely right. However, I suspect things would be pretty different had we been able to do this twenty-five years ago; back then, I suspect VTR would still be counting our votes for The Nugget and reading posts hailing him as the best of all time.

As to how will Woods end up, I would rather not speculate.

I have no such doubts about Federer although still prefer to see it proven in time rather than assume it now.

That leaves my vote today going to the underrated Gabreselassie, a very fine athlete and role model.

Stella wrote:Not when there are only really five to six contenders, four being more realistic. In Golf, anyone can and does win.

Anyone from a pool of 128 can win a Slam. Just a case of being good enough to do so. I am not one that Golf holds a special exemption for the lack of multiple Major winners. Some would argue it is not a strong field that contests them.

super_realist wrote:What has race got to do with this Oakey, it's irrelevant. Vijay Singh predates him as a black man anyway.

He's also never been statistically the best putter, ball striker and is "fitness" is not even worth mentioning, as it's not fitness but conditioning.

i think it goes a very long way when we talk about legacys. He certainly brought many fans into the game that wouldnt have got into it otherwise- is that down to tiger as a human- well no- but its a talking point when we discuss legacies..

sr- tigers clutch putting was on another level- i didnt mention putting on the whole..

Duty281:

I can see where you are coming from and i suppose it could be argued both ways. However lets say hypothetically you had the choice to compete in either the Open Championship or Wimbledon. You know that realistically anyone out of 150 competitors could have a good week and win the Open and there's not a lot you can do to stop them. However there is only really at the very most 5 or 6 people who can win Wimbledon and so you'd only have to conquer them to win it. Baring in mind that you also wouldn't have to play all of them then logic surely states Wimbledon would be the sensible option to choose if you wanted to win one of the two?

Not sure about other G.O.A.T. advocacies, but the case put forward for Tiger Woods is riddled with inaccuracies.

Especially egregious is the contention that in addition to his PGA Tour titles "he has another 38 European Tour wins and other worldwide tournaments".

No he doesn't, the 38 you describe include 14 Majors and approx 16 x WGC's which are already included amongst his PGA Tour titles.

There are several other porkies and misguided contentions, none of which diminish the fact that Tiger is the greatest golfer of the past twenty years and may well surpass Jack Nicklaus's achievements in the years to come.

May even surpass Federer's relative achievements, but you'd have to bet against that.

Meanwhile, there are fewer black golfers on the PGA Tour, golf courses in the USA are closing at a faster rate than they're being built, and there continue to be fewer rounds played per year than in the previous year.

Tiger's legacy is in his bank account, not what he has given the world of sport.

Steve Davis is generally being judged today on this thread as a decent snooker player who was a dominant force in the sport during the 1980s but is now a million miles from being our GOAT. In my view, that's entirely right. However, I suspect things would be pretty different had we been able to do this twenty-five years ago; back then, I suspect VTR would still be counting our votes for The Nugget and reading posts hailing him as the best of all time.

For the purposes of this vote, his continuing to play hasn't changed anything. If he'd retired in 1990 I would imagine that he would still have the same number of votes. Can't imagine anyone is casting votes for him based on his post 1990 exploits.

Federer and Woods have already built up a significant body of work that they should be brought into consideration. If Woods wins the next 5 majors then he'd surely gather more votes in a similar process if it was held in 2015, but, it still makes sense to include him here as some may already consider his achievements to have surpassed any other sport stars.

"No he doesn't, the 38 you describe include 14 Majors and approx 16 x WGC's which are already included amongst his PGA Tour titles."

very true.. something most people dont get, but then it is understandable.

"
Tiger's legacy is in his bank account, not what he has given the world of sport"

not so true.. many fans of the back of him

mystiroakey wrote:"
Tiger's legacy is in his bank account, not what he has given the world of sport"

not so true.. many fans of the back of him

They are sycophantic Woods fans, doesn't make them golf fans any more than some glory hunting Man U fan is a football fan.

super_realist wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:"
Tiger's legacy is in his bank account, not what he has given the world of sport"

not so true.. many fans of the back of him

They are sycophantic Woods fans, doesn't make them golf fans any more than some glory hunting Man U fan is a football fan.

Dreary me.

We all have reasons for getting into sport, be it a player, team or something else.

not just fans though., players as well.. from other classes creeds, colours..

But yeah there are some fans of woods only and not particularly the sport..

I find it funny that I am not even a fan and like him only as the villian of golf yet am his greatest backer in these discussions. But i allways try and be objective..

Thing is though, there are a lot of idiots who only watch if Woods is playing. That's not loving the game, that's favouring a player.

That's not getting into sport anyway, merely watching it.

superflyweight wrote:

Steve Davis is generally being judged today on this thread as a decent snooker player who was a dominant force in the sport during the 1980s but is now a million miles from being our GOAT. In my view, that's entirely right. However, I suspect things would be pretty different had we been able to do this twenty-five years ago; back then, I suspect VTR would still be counting our votes for The Nugget and reading posts hailing him as the best of all time.

For the purposes of this vote, his continuing to play hasn't changed anything. If he'd retired in 1990 I would imagine that he would still have the same number of votes. Can't imagine anyone is casting votes for him based on his post 1990 exploits.

Federer and Woods have already built up a significant body of work that they should be brought into consideration. If Woods wins the next 5 majors then he'd surely gather more votes in a similar process if it was held in 2015, but, it still makes sense to include him here as some may already consider his achievements to have surpassed any other sport stars.

Superfly - the point I was trying to make is that current stardom can be temporary rather than ever lasting. The passage of the last twenty-five years has given us the opportunity to properly assess the contribution and legacy of Steve Davis to snooker and sport as a whole. Whilst we are now rather dismissive of Davis (and rightfully so in my view), I suspect too many of us a quarter of a century ago would not have foreseen his reign falling away so quickly and would have been too quick to vote for him.

Woods got me into Golf but I still watch it even if he's missed the cut.

Stella wrote:I'm no Tennis nut but did Bjorg face much of Lendl?

Yep, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Borg hardly played Lendl, and by the time Lendl hit his stride Borg was long gone.

Stella wrote:Woods got me into Golf but I still watch it even if he's missed the cut.

If Woods was a genial, pleasant, gregarious, outgoing, friendly guy who appeared to enjoy the game I'd like him, but he's a miserable, sullen, grumpy, wooden, boring, joyless, humourless, ungracious, unsporting half-wit who ruins every moment of coverage of every tournament he's in.

I agree he's a golf GOAT, but he's not the golf GOAT, and miles off Federer.

super_realist wrote:

Stella wrote:Woods got me into Golf but I still watch it even if he's missed the cut.

If Woods was a genial, pleasant, gregarious, outgoing, friendly guy who appeared to enjoy the game I'd like him, but he's a miserable, sullen, grumpy, wooden, boring, joyless, humourless, half-wit who ruins every moment of coverage of every tournament he's in.

I agree he's a golf GOAT, but he's not the golf GOAT, and miles off Federer.

I wouldn't know if Nicklaus, Jones or Palmer was better, if I'm being honest.

guildfordbat wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Steve Davis is generally being judged today on this thread as a decent snooker player who was a dominant force in the sport during the 1980s but is now a million miles from being our GOAT. In my view, that's entirely right. However, I suspect things would be pretty different had we been able to do this twenty-five years ago; back then, I suspect VTR would still be counting our votes for The Nugget and reading posts hailing him as the best of all time.

For the purposes of this vote, his continuing to play hasn't changed anything. If he'd retired in 1990 I would imagine that he would still have the same number of votes. Can't imagine anyone is casting votes for him based on his post 1990 exploits.

Federer and Woods have already built up a significant body of work that they should be brought into consideration. If Woods wins the next 5 majors then he'd surely gather more votes in a similar process if it was held in 2015, but, it still makes sense to include him here as some may already consider his achievements to have surpassed any other sport stars.

Superfly - the point I was trying to make is that current stardom can be temporary rather than ever lasting. The passage of the last twenty-five years has given us the opportunity to properly assess the contribution and legacy of Steve Davis to snooker and sport as a whole. Whilst we are now rather dismissive of Davis (and rightfully so in my view), I suspect too many of us a quarter of a century ago would not have foreseen his reign falling away so quickly and would have been too quick to vote for him.

It's a fair point. I suppose its the fundamental flaw in this process. Any vote can really only be of its moment.

super_realist wrote:

Stella wrote:Woods got me into Golf but I still watch it even if he's missed the cut.

If Woods was a genial, pleasant, gregarious, outgoing, friendly guy who appeared to enjoy the game I'd like him, but he's a miserable, sullen, grumpy, wooden, boring, joyless, humourless, ungracious, unsporting half-wit who ruins every moment of coverage of every tournament he's in.

I agree he's a golf GOAT, but he's not the golf GOAT, and miles off Federer.

stella good stuff. Great player, and what these pros are like is completly immaterial to me... I just dont give a monkies- i like sport for ability. I dont need to know anything else

emancipator wrote:

Stella wrote:I'm no Tennis nut but did Bjorg face much of Lendl?

Yep, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Borg hardly played Lendl, and by the time Lendl hit his stride Borg was long gone.

Borg beat Lendl to win his last French Open I believe.

Super_realist:

If had a pound for every time i had to read some of the nonsense you post about Woods then i'd have enough money to last 10 life times. For somebody who does not like him you seem to mention him in your comments far more than anybody else does on the Golf boards and even sometimes when the general thread has nothing to do with him. Hating somebody you have never met and using petty reasons not to respect their achievements is far sadder in my opinion than being a "Tiger only fan" as you were talking about earlier. In fact you unnecessary hatred of the man leads me to think there is a hint of jealousy in your reasoning.

You'd have about 20 quid Seve.
I've admitted that he's a GOAT, that's respecting his achievements. He's still a pretty ghastly person though so I can't understand why so many people metaphorically fellate the guy at every opportunity.

superflyweight wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Steve Davis is generally being judged today on this thread as a decent snooker player who was a dominant force in the sport during the 1980s but is now a million miles from being our GOAT. In my view, that's entirely right. However, I suspect things would be pretty different had we been able to do this twenty-five years ago; back then, I suspect VTR would still be counting our votes for The Nugget and reading posts hailing him as the best of all time.

For the purposes of this vote, his continuing to play hasn't changed anything. If he'd retired in 1990 I would imagine that he would still have the same number of votes. Can't imagine anyone is casting votes for him based on his post 1990 exploits.

Federer and Woods have already built up a significant body of work that they should be brought into consideration. If Woods wins the next 5 majors then he'd surely gather more votes in a similar process if it was held in 2015, but, it still makes sense to include him here as some may already consider his achievements to have surpassed any other sport stars.

Superfly - the point I was trying to make is that current stardom can be temporary rather than ever lasting. The passage of the last twenty-five years has given us the opportunity to properly assess the contribution and legacy of Steve Davis to snooker and sport as a whole. Whilst we are now rather dismissive of Davis (and rightfully so in my view), I suspect too many of us a quarter of a century ago would not have foreseen his reign falling away so quickly and would have been too quick to vote for him.

It's a fair point. I suppose its the fundamental flaw in this process. Any vote can really only be of its moment.

For me, a GOAT has to have passed the test of time. Whilst that may seem inherently harsh on the current likes of Federer and Woods, I believe it is only right that we recognise the continuing legacies of past greats such as Pele, Ali and Sobers.

The thing with Davis is, he set all these records, and along came Hendry to beat them.

I guess with that in mind, a worry about voting for Federer is whether Djokovic say won't beat all his records over the next 10 years or so. Unlikely, but I imagine this is part of the concern over voting for someone still currently playing, or having just recently ended his career.

Mike Selig wrote:The thing with Davis is, he set all these records, and along came Hendry to beat them.

I guess with that in mind, a worry about voting for Federer is whether Djokovic say won't beat all his records over the next 10 years or so. Unlikely, but I imagine this is part of the concern over voting for someone still currently playing, or having just recently ended his career.

Mike - yes, that's pretty much it. Plus - with Woods, you never know what he is going to do next and, like you, character comes into this for me.

You know he's never going to smile.

I think it's fair to say that Federer and Woods' achievements already pass the test of time, at least statistically, guidfordbat. Most GS tennis titles ever for one; second most golf GS titles for the other. They could both stop today with no detriment to their professional standing. That was also the case with the three legends whom you cite. All were already acclaimed as all-time greats, even three or four years before they actually retired

Trouble is, I remember when Davis ruled snooker . . . . . Joe Davis, just a little bit better than his brother Fred.


Captain,
If Tiger's records stand "the test of time", then surely that means he is firmly second to Nicklaus as a G.O.A.T.? Can't have it both ways.

Super_realist:

I think it would probably be more in the region of 20 grand but anyway you say you have respected his achievements but in the same breath said he's not anywhere near Federer. That is blatantly not respecting his achievements and not to mention you stated in an earlier post that he deserves no respect. Whilst i agree there is no law saying you have to like the guy your hatred effects the way in which you measure his greatness.

Mike, Djokovic has 5 Slams, with only the Slam he's currently playing to add before he turns 26. He's also been Number One for maybe 60 odd weeks and won around 30 titles, I would guess. Federer's figures just before he turned 26 (say after Wimbledon of 2007) would be a good deal better - 11 Slams by then, 180 consecutive weeks at number one and counting - perhaps fifty-something titles overall. it's a bit fanciful to suggest that Novak is likely to eclipse those figures, marvellous player though he obviously is.

I went with Federer: for me there's no doubt that he's the best tennis player of all time. Basically Mike summed up my feelings pretty well on page 1, so can't be bothered to repeat them here. Federer should (and probably will) be right up there in the final reckoning.

People can point to his lack of RGs, but ultimately he was second best only to Nadal on clay, the fact that he was playing in the same era as the greatest clay-courter of all time shouldn't be held against him too much, certainly in this round. Certainly in any other era he'd have won more FOs than the one he has (though I'd rank Borg ahead of him, and possibly Kuerten too, I think he could have beaten these guys on clay, certainly more than Nadal).

captain: I don't think Mike was suggesting Djokovic was likely to eclipse Federer's records, just that it isn't impossible (though unlikely).

I do think that Tiger is second to Nicklaus, kwinigolfer - however, I also think that there is no doubting Tiger's stature as a sporting legend. I happen to think that he won't eclipse Nicklaus' achievements - and certainly, at 37, time is now against him - but that is not to say that he is not already a true great, whatever happens. For me, Nicklaus is among the half dozen greatest sportsmen of all time and in most other sports, Woods' achievements would entitle him to a number one ranking in his chosen field.

Captain - I do take your point and especially in the case of Federer. I just like to see the career as a whole before attempting to assess it.

To be fair to me, on the Cricket Hall of Fame I normally try hard to disregard any failings late in a player's career. After all, they could have chosen to retire a few years earlier and no concerns would ever have been raised. However, if someone totally and continually stuffs up in their later years (probably thinking more of a team game here than tennis or golf), there's a case for saying that should also go into the mix.

With regard to Woods, I do have concerns as to his character and feel it only right to see what the future holds in that regard.

Apologies, Mike, for slightly misrepresenting your view. I do generally agree tht one shoudn't try to compare an athlete in the middle of his or her career with his or her illustrious predecessors, but Federer and Woods are sufficiently close to the end of their roads to make it possible in their case.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Mike, Djokovic has 5 Slams, with only the Slam he's currently playing to add before he turns 26. He's also been Number One for maybe 60 odd weeks and won around 30 titles, I would guess. Federer's figures just before he turned 26 (say after Wimbledon of 2007) would be a good deal better - 11 Slams by then, 180 consecutive weeks at number one and counting - perhaps fifty-something titles overall. it's a bit fanciful to suggest that Novak is likely to eclipse those figures, marvellous player though he obviously is.

I agree it seems highly unlikely. But the point I was making is that Davis's record of WC and UK wins seemed unlikely to be beaten for a long time, then Hendry came along not even 10 years later. There are other examples of sporting records which people thought would last a lot longer: Johnson's 200 meter time, in swimming Ian Thorpe's 200 free-style record was one I thought would last and last. When Fred Truemann became the first bowler to take 300 test wickets, Richie Benaud (who is in my opinion and in the opinion of many others THE voice of cricket) hailed it as a "tremendous achievement, one which I certainly can't imagine being repeated in my lifetime" - how wrong he was (Muralitharan has over 800 wickets).

I'm not at all downplaying Federer's achievement. The point is we know it's better (by a long way) than anything which anybody else has ever done. But unless and until the record has stood for a significant period of time (10, 15 years) we don't really know how remarkable it is.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Apologies, Mike, for slightly misrepresenting your view. I do generally agree tht one shoudn't try to compare an athlete in the middle of his or her career with his or her illustrious predecessors, but Federer and Woods are sufficiently close to the end of their roads to make it possible in their case.

No apologies necessary. I agree with Federer, I think he really is coming to the end of his career (I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't win another slam TBH, although I wouldn't be surprised if he did). With Woods though he could conceivably continue for a while, and another major would enhance his case quite a bit (another one for Federer would be in some sense "just" another slam - we know he's capable of winning in this era against these competitors; for Woods he hasn't shown that yet for me) - as his record is now, it's "amazing 10 (ish) years of dominance, followed by fall from grace and has never quite recovered". With Federer it's "amazing 3-4 years of dominance, but carried on winning consistently (if less regularly than before) even when challengers emerged".