v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 9

A very rare runaway winner in yesterday’s group, Tennis supremo Roger Federer romped home with 59% of the total vote despite being up against arguably the greatest golfer of all time Tiger Woods. Tiger does progress into round two in second place, narrowly beating Haile Gebreselassie by just three votes, who along with snooker champion Steve Davis leaves the competition at the first stage.

Today’s group sees Swimming, Boxing, Baseball and Rugby, compete for your votes.

We have the three 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

Michael Phelps- Swimming- Championed by 88chris05

There probably aren't enough superlatives in a dictionary to fully explain the greatness of Michael Phelps, or just how much he's achieved in his professional swimming career. I'll make my agenda clear early on - if Phelps doesn't make it to the advanced stages (let's just say, last eight or better) of this process, then I honestly would consider it a v2 travesty. If anyone reading this isn't a great fan of swimming, then don't fret - you don't need to be in order to gain an understanding of some sort of Phelps' accomplishments, as they're so glaring and awe-inspiring. So I'll do my best to give a reasonable explanation of them here.

Unless you paid absolutely no attention to the London 2012 Olympic Games, you'll know that, during the Games, Phelps became the most decorated Olympian of all time, with his London haul of four gold and two silver medals bringing his overall tally to twenty-two (a staggering eighteen gold, two silver and two bronze, spanning the Athens Games of 2004, the Beijing Games of 2008 and last year's London edition). This would be a damn good time for me to dispel and irksome myth, namely this idea I've seen thrown about that Phelps only became the most decorated Olympian of them all because there are "loads of medals in swimming" and / or because "it's easy to win them in that sport." First off, as I'll explain a little further down, there's nothing remotely easy about swimming and secondly, you'll find that, of the top ten most prolific Olympic medal winners in history, Phelps is the only swimmer amongst them. It should also be noted that Phelps is the owner of eleven individual golds in the Olympics (thirteen individual medals of all colours), more than any other man or woman in history - once again, this serves to dim the off-base talk suggesting that relay medals have given an over-inflated view of Phelps' achievements.

On top of that, there's thirty-four World Championship medals (a record), twenty-six of them being gold (a record), seven 'World Swimmer of the Year' titles (a record), a world record set at the tender age of fifteen years and nine months (a record), thirty-nine world records in all (a record), as well as becoming, in 2008, the only swimmer ever to win the coveted 'Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year' award.

Some CV: some athlete.

However, those numbers alone still can't fully convey how utterly dominant Phelps has been within his field, and nor can they give full context to his brilliance.

To me, even more than his medal collection, what sets Phelps apart is his unbelievable desire to test himself and take on new challengers, no matter how daunting they may be. By 2004, Phelps had already established himself as the most complete and best all-round swimmer on the planet at that time, with four gold medals and two silvers at the previous year's World Championships. By now, Phelps had established himself as being completely dominant in the 200m individual medley, 400m individual medley and also the 200m backstroke, and held the world record in all of these events. He was also the silver medal winner in the 100m butterfly. Let's remember here, before we get too far in, that all but a very select few swimmers spend their whole career concentrating and excelling in just one specialist event.

These were the events he'd been training for and participating in all of his career thus far, and it would have been easy for him to have stayed within these confines (although it was already one hell of a hectic schedule!) and remain undefeated throughout the 2004 Olympics. However, Phelps wanted to try and do the impossible; eclipse Mark Spitz's feat of seven golds in one Games in the 1972 Munich Olympics, and to do that meant adding the 200m freestyle to his schedule.

In that event, Phelps had to settle for a bronze medal, trailing in behind Australian legend Ian Thorpe and also Holland's Pieter Van Den Hoogenband. But the point is, a bronze in the 200m freestyle was still a remarkable feat - Thorpe and Van Den Hoogenband were the two preeminent freestylers of that era, and also the two fastest ever over that distance. Phelps, in comparison, had never even taken a stab at that discipline before Athens. It's worth noting that, after Phelps had dominated him at the 200m individual medley event at the 2003 World Championships, Thorpe never ventured in to one of Phelps' signature events again. However, the nineteen year old Phelps vowed to carry on until he became the world's best freestyler, to go along with being the world's best in the butterfly and medleys. Keep in mind that, at the time, most observers felt that this was a truly unreachable goal. Nevertheless, Phelps was the most successful athlete of the Games, narrowly falling short of Spitz's seven golds but still scooping up six golds (four of which came in individual events, equalling Spitz in that regard) and two bronzes.

His dominance in the butterly and medleys assured (he completed the 100m-200m double and the 200m-400m double in those events respectively in Athens), Phelps, good to his word, then set his sights on Thorpe's 200m freestyle world record (thought to be the best record in men's swimming at the time) of 1 minute 44.06 seconds, edging it out at the 2007 World Championships with a 1 minute 43.86 and then totally dismantling it with a 1 minute 42.96 clocking in winning the 200m freestyle gold at the 2008 Beijing Games.

I mean seriously, come on - he's not even meant to be a freestyler!

Almost as a bit of fun, Phelps even tried his hand at the backstroke in 2006, an event in which he was even less experienced and trained in than the freestyle. At the Pan Pacific championships that year, he won the silver medal in the 200m backstroke event. It was the only time he ever competed in backstroke at a major championship but, a year later, he showed his hand when he gave the discipline another whirl at the US Nationals; incredibly, he clocked the third fastest time ever recorded in the 200m backstroke, and went one better in the 100m, coming up with the second best time ever, just 0.03 seconds off the world record for the event. That a part-time (at best) backstroker could, almost at the drop of a hat, produce such performances in his weakest event, all while dominating the butterfly, medleys and freestyle (2007 had been the year in which Phelps scooped seven golds in seven events at the World Championships, lest we forget) is way beyond remarkable. I don't think there are sufficient words for it, in fact.

And then, of course, came the most successful Olympic campaign ever in Beijing in 2008, as Phelps took eight gold medals in eight events (seven of them in world record time, the other 'only' an Olympic record), eclipsing Spitz's aforementioned seven. His five individual golds at the meet (400m individual medley, 200m freestyle, 200m butterfly, 200m individual medley and 100m butterfly) also equaled the record for the most individual golds won in a single Olympics.

After the Games, a debate raged on about who was the stand out performer and / or biggest star of the Beijing Olympics - Phelps, or the incredible Jamaican track star Usain Bolt, who set world records in winning gold in the 100m, 200m and 4x100m sprints. Well, due to track and field's popularity and his telegenic personality (a contrast to the quiet, reserved Phelps), Bolt was the star of Beijing. But was he the greatest performer of the Games, as many claimed? Absolutely not. Phelps was. The variety of his schedule is scary. Ian Thorpe won nine Olympic medals, which is fantastic, of course. But all of them were in freestyle. Phelps' medals came in freestyle, butterfly and medley - to even compare, I honestly think that Bolt would have needed to add long jump to his arsenal and won the gold in that event, and / or perhaps a longer sprint such as the 400m.

After the eight golds of Beijing it was, naturally, impossible for Phelps to go beyond what he'd already done, however the medals continued to flow right up until his retirement after London 2012; five golds and one silver at the 2009 World Championships, four golds, two silvers and one bronze at the 2011 World Championships and then, to put the seal on his career, those four golds and two silvers in London.

Not only does Phelps boast unrivalled diversity and variety in the pool, then, but he also has insane fitness and unbelievable longevity to bolster his claim of being the greatest sportsperson of them all.

Take his Beijing feats, for example; to collect his eight gold medals, Phelps had to complete seventeen races in one week, what with the qualification rounds before the finals. While he was doing this across the past three Olympics, he often had rivals awaiting him near the end of the week - rivals who competed in just one specialty event and, having nothing like the work load of Phelps, would have been rubbing their hands together watching him fatigue himself. Milorad Cavic, a world champion over the 50m butterfly (and a former world record holder over the 100m distance) was awaiting Phelps in the 100m butterfy final in Beijing. How much fresher and less fatigued he must have been than Phelps at that stage was staggering - he'd dropped the 200m butterfly in order to maximise his chances of upsetting Phelps over the shorter course, and Phelps had already collected six gold medals that week. And yet, Phelps was still able to claim the gold in what was, without doubt, the greatest race I've ever seen in the pool.

Once more, to consistently be able to race across so many different disciplines for a week and then, at the end of it, be able to beat world-class specialists at their best event and after they've basically spent a week resting in comparison is a true mark of Phelps' ridiculous talent, and also his wonderful winning mentality.

What's more, swimming is a hard sport to stay at the top of, and seldom do its top practicioners produce anything like their best after their mid twenties. Before Phelps came along, no man in history had ever managed to win the same event at three successive Olympics in the pool, and many observers were wondering if the 'threepeat' was indeed possible at all, given how short a swimmer's peak is. Step forward Mr. Phelps, who made history at London 2012 by becoming the first man ever to do this, taking gold in the 200m individual medley (ahead of his great rival Ryan Lochte) to go along with the golds he took in that same event in 2004 and 2008. Not content with making history once, less than twenty-four hours later he was at it again, winning the final of the 100m butterfly (the last individual race of his career), turning a never done before threepeat in to a double threepeat.

Typical Phelps, really - nobody ever did it, and then he goes and does it twice at the same Olympics! It's just an outrageously fabulous achievement. And, for the third successive Olympics, Phelps took home more medals than any other athlete of the Games, regardless of discipline.

There have been some great all-rounders in sport; Gary Sobers in cricket, Frank Riijkaard in football - but none of them have been as complete across so many areas as Michael Phelps has been. If you wanted to be pedantic, then you could argue that Phelps lacks Usain Bolt's irrepressible star quality, or that he's not at the centre of the dreams of the world's youngsters the way that Lionel Messi is. But swimming is a sport which has grown immensely in participation levels, both amatuer and professional, in the past two decades, as well as being a truly demanding and punishing one in which incredible focus, dedication and a great deal of God-given talent are all neccessities. And Michael Phelps has been, to put it mildly, the Don Bradman of swimming. In many ways, in fact, you could argue that the 'Baltimore Bullett' has dominated his own field to an even greater extent than Bradman dominated his.

Not the greatest sporting personality, but as a sportsman in the purest form, and a true freak of nature, Phelps simply must be amongst the very, very elite of all time. Despite the length of this article, I still don't think I've done him full justice - that's how highly I think of Michael Phelps, unquestionably the greatest swimmer and most successful Olympian to ever walk the planet.

Mike Tyson- Boxing- Championed by Spaghetti-Hans

Prologue.

When the organizers of this prestigious competition came together around a mahogany table last May and put forward their list of candidates, there was one man of the top of every list that they almost dared not mention. He was a flash point; a ticking timebomb. They knew that he would have to be handled with care, lest he plunge the entire tournament into disrepute and infamy. It was decided that only one poster (or rather, collective of posters) had the ability to tackle such a subject. Having courted controversy even back in the days of Ye Olde 606, only Spaghetti Hans, aka The Main Event Lads, were capable of this task. We were approached by Tournament Director MtotheC with the simple question: Could we champion the unchampionable? Could we put forward the case for a man arrested 38 times by the age of 13; A man who served three years for r***; A man who chewed a rival’s ear in half. This is not a defence of those actions, nor should they ever be forgotten when casting your vote, but remember what this tournament asks of you dear voter. There it is, just above this article – ‘Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport.’ And ask yourself: Has anyone really achieved more, or competed more ferociously, than Iron Mike Tyson?
Tyson.

This is the story of a boy who was the best – almost instantly, no gradual maturation, just a fully-formed champion from the start – whose ferocious frightening aggression won him everything there was: The youngest champion at just 20 years of age; the first heavyweight to simultaneously hold the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles; and the only man to unify them. And yet whose same aggression would spiral spectacularly out of control and would ultimately cost him everything.

It’s difficult to accurately describe quite how incredible Tyson was a young boxer, and what an impact he made upon the sport. He was heavily-hyped, earmarked for greatness, his first professional fight drawing in fight fans from all four corners of America. They had come hearing rumours of his awesome potential. They knew that he was the reigning Junior Olympic Games Champion (having knocked one opponent out in 8 seconds flat), but that was about it. What they saw floored them all: A first round KO – soon to be a familiar sight. Commentators were astounded, noting how the kid had no time for the niceties of jabbing, instead focusing all his energies into devastating hooks to the head and body. His career began in whirlwind of early KO’s. Like a man in a hurry he began a ferocious rise to the top. His run of dominance – from newcomer to Heavyweight Champion in 18 months – was jaw-dropping. 15 wins in 1985, all by knock-out, were followed by 13 more the following year as Tyson scythed through the field – culminating in the second round knock-out of the man who ended Ali’s career, Trevor Berbick, and his first taste of championship gold.

Mid to Late 80s Tyson was nothing less than The Baddest Man on The Planet. Early recordings are an extraordinary document of his animalistic intensity – just watch Jesse Ferguson walk into a frenzied flurry of punches in Tyson’s first televised fight, or ‘Mumbling’ Marvis Frazier (son of Joe) drop to the floor like a puppet whose strings had been cut within 20 seconds of the bell. Joe convinced the officials to clock the fight at 30 seconds to spare Marvis’ blushes, but there was no shame in it - Tyson did it to everybody. Even greats like Frank Bruno and The Easton Assassin Larry Holmes were dispatched by Kid Dynamite. He was a human wind tunnel of self-belief and iron will, a perfect physical specimen schooled on the streets of Brooklyn, a master of the art of intimidation. Here was a teenager beating experienced opponents before the bell had even been rung. And his left and right hooks (ranked number one in ESPN’s hardest hitters) were sheer power on a level never before seen in a boxing ring. You can actually see it in the fighter’s glazed eyes after they’d tasted that first uppercut (if they were still standing): nobody had ever punched that hard. Sterling Benjamin described it as ‘a sledgehammer,’ and tried to have the Tyson Uppercut banned. Lawyers were called in to assess the dangers. As Sugar Ray Robinson commented in the aftermath of his devastating 91 second knock-out of then unbeaten Olympic Gold Medalist and Hall of Famer Michael Spinks in 1988: ‘He was so destructive he should be locked up.’ How prescient that would prove.



Tyson’s rise had been meteoric, an unstoppable force that stunned the boxing world. There was a genuine belief that he was unbeatable. The phrase repeated by all – from George Bush Sr. in an early phone call to Jerry Rice, to Smokin’ Steve Albert himself – was that ‘the only thing that can beat Mike Tyson is Mike Tyson himself.’ And indeed behind the iron curtain of Tyson’s public persona clouds were gathering, the thread was starting to tug. The death of his mentor, trainer, and father figure, Cus D’Amato in 1985 – in the midst of his ascent to the top – had an immeasurable impact on his life. D’Amato had plucked him from the streets as a feral youth, and recognizing his talent had taught him discipline both inside and outside the ring. Following his death, these lessons were ignored. Tyson became sloppy in the ring, the peak-a-boo defensive stance often forgotten in his hurry to finish his opponent off. It’s a testament to his awesome speed and power that he was able to compensate for this lack of craft and still dominate the division. But as Don King’s promise of millions turned him away from the team that had kept the fragile fighter on a steady course, out of ring distractions, an unravelling marriage, and ill-discipline, all took their toll. Tyson began to boil over.

All these factors brought an end to his half-decade of destruction, and made his shock 1990 defeat possible. The 42/1 longshot ‘Unbackable’ Buster Douglas, so unfancied even his own wife didn’t take up those generous odds, knocked the champion to the canvas for the very first time in his 38th professional fight. The Tokyo crowd sat open-mouthed in hushed disbelief, sushi littered the floor. Tyson himself spent precious seconds on the floor scrambling around searching for his mouthguard – so alien was it to him to be in this position he didn’t know quite what to do. It is widely regarded as the greatest upset in boxing history, and the lapse cost Tyson the chance to break Rocky Marciano’s record of 49 unbeaten fights – a record he had always seemed destined to achieve.

It was the beginning of the end for Tyson. He was still a hell of a fighter – his double bill of victories against the great Canadian hope, Razor Ruddock, a man Evander Holyfield had desperately dodged, stand amongst Tyson’s greatest wins. But by then he had self-destructed – Smokin’ Steve Albert’s prophesy come to pass. Incarcerated for r*** he wouldn’t set foot in a ring again until 1995. The Tyson who returned was a danger to himself and his opponents. He’d given up all pretence of defence – his gameplan was simply to uppercut until he took someone’s head off, or lost his own. His final ten years in the sport flew by in a haze of controversy. The intensity of old had lost all direction. He was, simply, feral. He briefly reclaimed his WBA and WBC titles, but also had to contend with disqualifications for cannabis use, crippling defeats in the only fights that mattered to Holyfield and Lewis, cries of cannibalism, assault charges, the stigma of being ‘The Most Hated Man in America’, and a final humbling loss to Irish journeyman, Kevin McBride.

But make no mistake, he was box-office. Nothing compared to the hype surrounding his long delayed bout with Holyfield. Tyson-Holyfield I is still the high water mark for sheer public sporting hysteria. ‘Finally’ we were seeing it. Las Vegas was at a stand-still – everybody on earth wanted to say they were there. The Main Event Lads remember standing on craps tables in the Bellagio craning to get a view on the big screens, watching in shock as The Real Deal proved he was so. Then 6 months later The Sound and The Fury of Tyson-Holyfield II was deafening – the shock of seeing Tyson tear his rival’s earlobe off made headlines the world over. With his licence suspended the outcast turned to the WWF. The Boss, Vince McMahon paying him $3m to be special guest enforcer at Wrestlemania in the belief that only he could keep The Rattlesnake Stone Cold Steve Austin in check. But the boxing public demanded the return of the man they loved to hate, and Lewis–Tyson (‘Is On’) in 2002 was Tyson’s last shot at the title. But for all his talk of eating Lewis’ children, Iron Mike had lost the hunger, and was resoundingly knocked out in the 8th. The public appetite for the fight was insatiable however, and shattered box office records once more. His skills had diminished, but make no mistake there was still no-one bigger than The Baddest Man in Sport.

Mike Tyson is simply the most iconic heavyweight since Ali. And until his reputation was irrevocably tarnished both in-ring and out, he had a strong argument to be called the greatest of all time. It is impossible to over empathize the impact he had in the 80’s. People had never seen (or felt) anything quite like it. His rage was irresistible. No-one had ever been so dominant. He changed the sport forever. Tyson once said that ‘I have to live at the top of the world or I have to live at the bottom of the ocean.’ The man did both, and for good and for evil, he transcended his sport, and captured the attention of the world. His demise directly led to the diminishing of the wider public’s interest in Heavyweight boxing, indeed arguably in boxing full stop, however hard Lewis and the Klitschkos tried to support it on their broad shoulders. They will be forgotten twenty, thirty years from now – Mike Tyson won’t be.

Jonah Lomu- Rugby- Championed by AucklandLaurie

"In the history of Rugby Union no other individual player has made the rugby World stop and watch in utter awe. In the history of Rugby Union no other player has made the rest of the sporting World stop and look at Rugby Union.
Born and raised in the tough South Auckland suburb of Otara. Jonah started his sporting life playing Rugby League for the Otara Scorpions. At the age of 14 standing at 1.9m tall and weighing 95 kilos he was bundled off to Wesley College where it was decided his future lay at lock. After a short period it was decided that it was a waste of talent so he was tried at No 8. But while all this was going Jonah wasn’t all that particularly interested in Rugby, this Polynesian kid with all the athletic talent in the World wanted to achieve his first love: athletics ... He wanted to go to the Olympics as a decathlete.
Upon leaving school he was taken to Hong Kong to play sevens for New Zealand; this was the first time the outside World saw Jonah. New Zealand won the tournament, and mostly through the staggering display of this new Kiwi, his ability to sidestep Sereve, or go around, away or through Campese had never been seen before.
At this stage Jonah was only weighing a little over 105 kilos but was running sub 11secs for the hundred metres in spikes and sub 12s in mouldeds on grass.
By 1994 he made the All Blacks and Jonah bought his power game to the 15 aside version of the game and showed the rest of his complete tool box of pace, step (both in and away), and acceleration that made him the most dominant player in World rugby - if none of those worked Jonah could also revert to absolutely smashing anyone that dared to stand in his way. He scored tries against every country he played against, apart from South Africa (but his team mates at fullback or on the right wing often did while the Saffas focused on Jonah).
In 1998 New Zealand, with a lot of assistance from Jonah won the gold medal at the Kuala Lumpa Commonwealth Games, some of Jonah’s fends in the final might have seen him sent off in modern rugby as being guilty of ""tip tackles"", his only saving grace would be that he had the ball under his other arm.
All in all Jonah scored nearly 200 tries in first class rugby, but it was the many other tries that his team mates scored as Jonah could attract at times up to 6 players and remove them from any defensive role, this made Jonah not only a valuable player but also a draw-card to International rugby and helped sell live TV feeds of international rugby around the globe.
Off the rugby field Jonah also was making an impact, sometimes with a lot of publicity and at other times not. Jonah was much in demand as a promotional sports talent for Television networks and sports apparel merchandisers, but Jonah never endorsed/promoted cigarettes, gambling or alcohol.

In 2001 he was contracted to adidas and formed part of their ""Be better"" global campaign alongside Ana Kournakova, David Beckham and Ato Bolden. Jonah had brought rugby into contention with the ""Big world sporting codes"", and by 2002 he had a Playstation game named after him.
Jonah also was representative on the World sage in another area, For many years now Jonah has been a member of ""Champions For Peace club"" wherein a number of elite athletes, members of royalty etc around the World commit through Sport to promote Peace by fundraising for Countries/Communities throughout the World that as a result of conflict lack social cohesion or are in extreme poverty.
Health:
In 1995 Jonah was diagnosed with a kidney disorder - Nephrofic syndrome. He received a kidney transplant in 2004. He carried his illness right through the peak of his playing career and we can only surmise what he could have achieved had he been fully fit.
Joannah Lumley or Jonah Lomu:
As I am writing this piece 10,000 miles away from most of you, I just thought I'd share a lighter hearted side of Jonah when he appeared on one of your own Television Sports shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd1hfFCYAzg
Even Daisy at the BBC now knows who Jonah Lomu is ...

Went for Phelps.
He's the only one who is considered a GOAT in his sport, although Ruth may be?

Tyson was exciting but I'm sure most boxing experts on here will have him below Ali and a few others, even Lennox Lewis.

I know naff all about Rugby but again Edwards, Blanco and a few others are I think better.

Not a very difficult choice today. Phelps competed in an era of swimming that I'll always remember poorly, as he competed in an era known for two things - world records every five minutes, and the improvements in swimwear that tarnished those records. While it might not be a sport that relies on doping, it is a sport that I cannot take seriously due to that issue. And so, regardless of medals or talent, I cannot consider anyone from the world of swimming a GOAT.

Tyson was a bully, tremendously talented, but vicious, nasty, and he beat up Frank Bruno. The incident with Holyfield immediately disqualifies him from my vote, as no GOAT would ever stoop so low.

Babe Ruth was an inspiration to many, is the most famous name in Baseball, and would be second in my vote.

But my vote goes to Jonah Lomu, the best rugby player I've ever seen, a sporting icon, capable of putting in the greatest performances of all time and of getting his teammates to up their game. What a player he was - and he gets my vote as the GOAT from the world of rugby.

I remember watching Tyson in the 80's and his power and speed were just frightening. I think if he didn't have such the fall from grace he did, I think many would rate him highly.

For me it is Phelps all the way. The guy is a relentless speed machine.

Suspect I will be ploughing something of a lone furrow on this one but have gone for Ruth. Am by no means an expert on baseball but like it well enough to know how great Ruth was. Tyson has no place being anywhere near this vote, would not even make the 20 greatest boxers of all time, and I say that as a commited boxing fan.

Easy choice for me, I dont think Id have Lomu in my 64 and certainly wouldnt have Tyson anywhere near it, and not enough of an expert on baseball to make a call on Babe Ruth...so its Phelps all the way for me.
IMO he should be at least top 3 come the end of this process but Ive a feeling he wont be.

I have to say, I did like Tyson's write up by Spaghetti

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

But my vote goes to Jonah Lomu, the best rugby player I've ever seen, a sporting icon, capable of putting in the greatest performances of all time and of getting his teammates to up their game. What a player he was - and he gets my vote as the GOAT from the world of rugby.

To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

It shouldnt be that hard for the All Blacks though, they were massive favourites for that game. It was a much tighter scenario in 1974, the German side was full of quality and that result was far from being a complete shock.
Beckenbauer has a right to be seen as just as much a great of the game as Cruyf, the guy invented his position, Muller one the all time great poachers and Breitner is possibly the most underated player in history.
If you are going to pick holes in Phelps career re world records falling quickly....which I dont really get as everyone had the same advantages...then you have to be realistic about Lomus failings and this was massive, on the biggest stage on the biggest day he failed. He didnt inspire his team, far from it Im afraid.

Stella wrote:I have to say, I did like Tyson's write up by Spaghetti

True it is an excellent piece and makes excellent points

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

And besides, most of the 95 All Blacks had food poisoning before "that" game - it's hard to win a match when players are sneaking off to the sidelines to

Tyson is the greatest fighter of all time. The demolition job he did to Michael Spinks and Holmes was something unheard of at the time and never replicated afterwards. Of all the boxing legends he is in a class of his own.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

And besides, most of the 95 All Blacks had food poisoning before "that" game - it's hard to win a match when players are sneaking off to the sidelines to

Allegedly. Just like when they lost at Twickenham last year. None of that goes in the record books Im afraid.

The thing about Lomu was that in a game that really is a team game, unlike football or basketball or even cricket where individuals can easily win a match with little real input from team-mates with a good enough performance, he was maybe one of 2 players who could regularly win the game by himself. He wasn't infallible, but then neither has any sportsman been and though the ABs were the best team in the world at the time, surely part of that has got to do with Lomu playing for them as well? You can't detract from a player by saying they have it easy because they play for a good team, because the player is making the team good more often than the opposite!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tyson is the greatest fighter of all time. The demolition job he did to Michael Spinks and Holmes was something unheard of at the time and never replicated afterwards. Of all the boxing legends he is in a class of his own.

killer group again!!!!

i would pick them all tbh..

phelps should win this- his record is second to none.

however lumo is one of my top ever rugby players.

tyson for me is the best ever boxer in his peak level.. not carrer- but peak level..

babe ruth is possibly americans biggest legend.. and possibly out of all american sports my goat..

i did however go for lumo- but I would be happy to have gone for any of them

Diggers wrote:If you are going to pick holes in Phelps career re world records falling quickly....which I dont really get as everyone had the same advantages...then you have to be realistic about Lomus failings and this was massive, on the biggest stage on the biggest day he failed. He didnt inspire his team, far from it Im afraid.

This vote is about opinions. In my opinion, nothing Phelps achieved can be put solely down to him. He could have just had a better wetsuit than the others. Regardless of world records, I can't bring myself to believe that it was all talent. Lomu is the best rugby player I've ever seen, and as Pete said that 95 final wasn't a fair fight. Lomu wasn't perfect - no-one is. It's just that of this four, I think he is the greatest sportsman. Feel free to vote for someone else, but nothing you can say about the other three can change my opinion.

Diggers wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

And besides, most of the 95 All Blacks had food poisoning before "that" game - it's hard to win a match when players are sneaking off to the sidelines to

Allegedly. Just like when they lost at Twickenham last year. None of that goes in the record books Im afraid.

They definitely had food poisoning, the allegedly is whether it was deliberate by SA. And tehy didn't have food poisoning this year - it was Norovirus, like much of London, and it had mostly passed by the time they played and they refused to use it as an excuse

Fantastic write ups today.

Couldnt consider Tyson for this. No where near the best in boxing and a very shady character. Would have been good to see a write up on Ruth. Lomu transcended rugby in the same way Pele did football but isn't the GOAT of rugby. My vote goes for Phelps whos record is out of this world. Fantastic write up from Chris

Agree with Rowley - Iron Mike has no business being in this list, and that comes from a boxing fanatic.

I have voted Phelps, his achievements are simply incredible. The world records aren't everything - some were set wearing the 'go faster suits' of course, but the way in which he has consistently beat his competitors in just about every stroke has been astonishing. Pure dominance and the sort of longevity that is deserving of a place in the knockout stages of this competition.

Lomu wasn't the best for long though was he? A bit like a one his wonder.

Another top quality quartet - pity there is no write-up on Babe Ruth, THE legendary figure of American sport. Would be interesting to see why he is held in quite such high esteem.

However, this isn't an American board, and even though I don't mind watching a bit of baseball I can't realistically consider such a purely American icon as our GOAT.

In some ways, although for markedly different reasons, I think Tyson and Lomu fall into the same category of 'great, but just what might have been?'

ESPN Classic recently showed a short series of documentaries about Tyson's rise through the ranks -man, that guy was fierce with his upper cuts and hooks from that relatively short but stocky and powerful frame. The youngest ever heavyweight world champion by destroying everyone in his path, and who looked like he could become the greatest ever but who was ultimately beaten by his personal demons. Even leaving aside the issues of his behaviour, his record in the second half of his career means he can't really be considered even the best heavyweight boxer ever. The question is whether he could have been had he been a more stable character, or was it that inner turmoil that drove him to such extraordinary heights on the way up?

Lomu was a phenomenon. As a rugby player he had his weaknesses - despite his size and strength, his one on one tackling could be iffy, and as a winger his defensive positioning was sometimes poor, allowing opponents to kick the ball in to the space behind him and then exploit his relatively slow turning. However, his game was not to be the all rounder, but to be the greatest attacking force rugby union has ever seen: 6'5", between about 17 and 18 stone in his prime and capable of running a sub 11 second 100m amounts to a rugby WMD, but add in that his footwork was as good as most wingers, and that he was probably the strongest and most powerful player on the pitch as well, and you have someone who goes beyond what was considered possible. A freak of the highest order.

As an England fan, his performance against us in the RWC semi-final in 95 still gives nightmares (even moreso if you are called Mike Catt or Tony Underwood) - a day this runaway freight train was simply unstoppable, as he ran through, round and when necessary straight over the top of anyone who tried to tackle him. That Lomu and the 95 All Blacks failed to win the final was one of the biggest sporting shocks ever - a combination of an inspired South African performance, great defence in isolating Lomu and stopping him getting the ball with any space to get moving, and a team-wide bout of food poisoning for the ABs all contributed to the Boks winning in extra time. All this, and Lomu was already suffering with the kidney disorder that compromised his career.

AuklandLaurie also makes the excellent point in his write-up that peak era Lomu had the effect of creating space for his teammates, simply by his presence on the pitch. Knowing that if he got the ball with a bit of space, he'd beat any opponent one on one (and indeed, very often one against 2 or 3), opposition sides would stack the defence on Lomu's wing in the hope of either cutting off the supply of passes or of gang-tackling him before he got going. The problem with that approach, at least against the All Blacks, was that on the other wing was the very under-rated Jeff Wilson and at full back was the incomparable Christian Cullen, two of the finest players at exploiting any space they found on the pitch.

Lomu was never to win the RWC, because of absurd selections and (by All Black standards) a weak pack in the 1999 semi-final and because his kidney condition kept him out of the 2003 tournament - indeed, by RWC 2003 he had played his last international and was months away from a life-saving kidney transplant.

On his day, the best there's ever been, but for reasons very much beyond his control, his best was relatively short and performances often compromised.

Which just leaves Phelps - another freak. While I don't think Olympic medal counting is the be-all and end-all (the fact is that the best swimmers and gymnasts can challenge for 6 or 7 titles in one games compared with 3 or 4 for track athletes and 1 for participants in a lot of other events), Phelps record in that regard certainly stands out and puts him as the greatest swimmer ever both in terms of performance at his peak and for the longevity of his career within touching distance of that peak level. Indeed, I think he has an outstanding case for being the greatest Olympic athlete of all time - very few athletes in physical disciplines win titles in 3 Games, and in an event as demanding of dedication as swimming, to do what Phelps did is just beyond belief.

Yesterday the point was made that sometimes you need time after a career ends to look back and understand the achievements in context. That probably does apply to Phelps to some extent - is there someone coming through the swimming ranks who is going to exceed Phelps's achievements in the way that Federer did to Sampras? However, as things stand I can't vote for anyone else out of this group.

Tyson's appeal lies solely in the fact that he was notorious and transcended the sport, literally. I have no issue with that having an impact on votes if there's a balance between transcending and being one of the greats purely on merit within their discipline - but Tyson is nowhere near on the latter. Yes, he got people talking about and watching boxing but on fistic merit he's not even regarded as one of the top fighters of his era, so can't be in contention here for me.

I genuinely fail to see more than two or three (at best) candidates from this whole process who were more dominant in their field than Phelps was, however.

I must take a slight exception to Azzy's claim that Phelps' standing should suffer due to the emergence of the 'super suits' which are now outlawed. The suits didn't really 'take over' until about 2008 / 2009, by which time Phelps was already the greatest swimmer of all time. He'd been setting world records as early as 2001 and winning World Championship gold medals from that same year onwards, too. Any study of Phelps' world records throughout his career shows a steady progression, in line with him developing as an athlete and gradually hitting his peak around the age of twenty-two / twenty-three, which is about the optimum age for a swimmer.

Compare that to Biedermann, however, who was a middling freestyler before switching to the super suits and then, almost out of nowhere in 2009, was suddenly good enough to break both the 200m and 400m world records in that event. Lo and behold, once those suits were banned in 2010 his performances dropped off drastically and he didn't even win a medal in the 200m at the London Olympics.

Phelps, on the other hand, has continued at a high level from 2010 until his retirement last year, with Lochte his only real / consistent rival in the big meets.

Besides, even if you don't pay much attention to world records, you have to admit that it's freakish how Phelps has been so utterly successful and dominant across such a range of strokes. Forgetting times, his dominance of the 400m individual medley and 200m butterfly in particular is incredible, similar to the way Edwin Moses owned the 400m hurdles or Sergei Bubka owned the pole vault. That he was then able to become a freestyle world record holder on top of that, as well as post some of the fastest times ever seen in backstroke despite them being his minor, part-time events, is phenomenal.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:If you are going to pick holes in Phelps career re world records falling quickly....which I dont really get as everyone had the same advantages...then you have to be realistic about Lomus failings and this was massive, on the biggest stage on the biggest day he failed. He didnt inspire his team, far from it Im afraid.

This vote is about opinions. In my opinion, nothing Phelps achieved can be put solely down to him. He could have just had a better wetsuit than the others. Regardless of world records, I can't bring myself to believe that it was all talent. Lomu is the best rugby player I've ever seen, and as Pete said that 95 final wasn't a fair fight. Lomu wasn't perfect - no-one is. It's just that of this four, I think he is the greatest sportsman. Feel free to vote for someone else, but nothing you can say about the other three can change my opinion.

Wont stop me saying it though, its all about debate and Ill certainly be debating that Lomu isnt even close to being in the same category of greatness as Phelps.

phelps is clearly a true goat in his field

the obvious flaw in his record is the amount of swimming medals that are up for grabs that are of a similar disciplne..

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Stella wrote:I have to say, I did like Tyson's write up by Spaghetti

True it is an excellent piece and makes excellent points

Agreed. I'm not going to disparage anyone's efforts here but, with no disrespect meant whatsoever to Spaghetti who may well be a silent boxing guru, does it say something that no boxing board regular did the write up for Tyson as superfly did for Robinson?

I'm probably seeing something that isn't there.

Still not voting for Tyson though!

Chris's write up has convinced me that my initial instinct to vote Phelps was the correct one. Good group again but that guy is a phenomenal athlete.

mystiroakey wrote:phelps is clearly a true goat in his field

the obvious flaw in his record is the amount of swimming medals that are up for grabs that are of a similar disciplne..

That applies to all swimmers though. They all supposedly have the chance to compete in multi disciplines, but nobody has dominated different strokes the way that Phelps has. He has picked up a lot of relay medals through being American, thats a fair enough comment to be made, but so did Spitz, Johnson, Lewis etc. And Id argue that if Lomu inspired his teammates, what kind of effect did having Phelps in the team have on both his colleagues and rivals ?
I cant think of a greater sporting achievement than Phelps medal haul in 2008, huge pressure, he had to be perfect and he pulled it off.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Stella wrote:I have to say, I did like Tyson's write up by Spaghetti

True it is an excellent piece and makes excellent points

Agreed. I'm not going to disparage anyone's efforts here but, with no disrespect meant whatsoever to Spaghetti who may well be a silent boxing guru, does it say something that no boxing board regular did the write up for Tyson as superfly did for Robinson?

I'm probably seeing something that isn't there.

Still not voting for Tyson though!

If you vote for Tyson Il I will ban you

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:phelps is clearly a true goat in his field

the obvious flaw in his record is the amount of swimming medals that are up for grabs that are of a similar disciplne..

That applies to all swimmers though. They all supposedly have the chance to compete in multi disciplines, but nobody has dominated different strokes the way that Phelps has. He has picked up a lot of relay medals through being American, thats a fair enough comment to be made, but so did Spitz, Johnson, Lewis etc. And Id argue that if Lomu inspired his teammates, what kind of effect did having Phelps in the team have on both his colleagues and rivals ?
I cant think of a greater sporting achievement than Phelps medal haul in 2008, huge pressure, he had to be perfect and he pulled it off.

i agree with you actually- but stacking phelps up against over athletes- as we were doing during the olympics shouldnt be measured on a medal count basis only..

I think phelps deserves this win.And he is a top 5 GOAT for me.. I didnt go for him in this case - probally more for tactical reasons.

Diggers wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

And besides, most of the 95 All Blacks had food poisoning before "that" game - it's hard to win a match when players are sneaking off to the sidelines to

Allegedly. Just like when they lost at Twickenham last year. None of that goes in the record books Im afraid.

Twickenham was a loss, fair & square. And you're right about the record books. However pictures of Jeff Wilson & Craig Dowd throwing up during the 95 final were broadcast - that's a solid fact. The silly "Suzy the waitress" conspiracy theory that followed on from it was daft admittedly, the illness was bad luck. And NZ still took the game to extra time.

Rowley wrote:

Il Gialloblu wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:

Stella wrote:I have to say, I did like Tyson's write up by Spaghetti

True it is an excellent piece and makes excellent points

Agreed. I'm not going to disparage anyone's efforts here but, with no disrespect meant whatsoever to Spaghetti who may well be a silent boxing guru, does it say something that no boxing board regular did the write up for Tyson as superfly did for Robinson?

I'm probably seeing something that isn't there.

Still not voting for Tyson though!

If you vote for Tyson Il I will ban you

I didn't.

Phelps is nailed on so I went with Ruth, as I think he deserves 2nd place over Lomu.

I think that it's almost impossible to differentiate between this quartet. Each has his obvious credentials, but none are without their "ah, but" factor, either.

I suppose, I'll have to dispose of Tyson first. For about three and a half years, he looked as though he would become not only the greatest force in boxing history, but also the most important sportsman since Ali. And then everything, and I mean everything, plunged into the abyss. His profession, his personal life, his reputation - dust. Three and a half years of greatness and the impact that they made are not enough to expunge the miserable decade that followed them, so Tyson has to be excluded from my calculations.

Jonah Lomu's impact on rugby was just as sudden, just as great and just as abruptly cut short as Tyson's was on boxing, although the end wasn't his fault. His peak lasted for longer, probably twice as long, in fact, and there's no doubt that we hadn't seen anything quite like him in rugby before, and we haven't done since, either. He'd arguably be one of my wings in the all-time celestial rugby team to play Mars. So why am I not voting for him? As a player, he could be contained - men like James Small and his cohorts were able to devise a strategy to bottle him up in situations where he was far less comfortable. Defensively, Jonah was something of a B- as well, rather like his great near-contemporary David Campese, who, in his own way, I would maintain, was just as effective a wing as Jonah. He was no great rugby brain, Lomu, just a force of nature that swept away most opposition. Most - not even his presence could lift two great All Blacks sides to victory over South Africa and France in the World Cups of 95 and 99. Compare this to Campese, whose genius was the main spark behind Australia's WC success in 91. A great rugby player, Lomu, but not, I think, the greatest sportsman ever, or even the greatest rugby player.

Picking between Phelps and Ruth is really difficult. Phelps' accomplishments are mind-boggling, and he's obviously the best swimmer who ever lived. I'm going to plump for Ruth, however. A tremendous pitcher even before he started performing feats with the bat that still take some believing, Ruth is still regarded as just about the best combined power/average hitter in baseball history. More than that, though, he transcended his sport and embodied his era, alongside men such as Jack Dempsey in boxing. People in Europe and Asia knew Ruth, even if they didn't know baseball. For many people, he defined the Roaring 20s, and he is my choice today.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

And besides, most of the 95 All Blacks had food poisoning before "that" game - it's hard to win a match when players are sneaking off to the sidelines to

Allegedly. Just like when they lost at Twickenham last year. None of that goes in the record books Im afraid.

Twickenham was a loss, fair & square. And you're right about the record books. However pictures of Jeff Wilson & Craig Dowd throwing up during the 95 final were broadcast - that's a solid fact. The silly "Suzy the waitress" conspiracy theory that followed on from it was daft admittedly, the illness was bad luck. And NZ still took the game to extra time.

Its tricky though isnt it, I dont really see how we can judge true greatness with what if's and maybes. We have no idea how much the All Blacks were effected so how do we go about quantifying the performance. We cant IMO so we just have to take a loss as face value and move on, otherwise its all conjecture and rumour.

Has anyone used the word PRIME to describe Tyson yet?

Diggers wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

And besides, most of the 95 All Blacks had food poisoning before "that" game - it's hard to win a match when players are sneaking off to the sidelines to

Allegedly. Just like when they lost at Twickenham last year. None of that goes in the record books Im afraid.

Twickenham was a loss, fair & square. And you're right about the record books. However pictures of Jeff Wilson & Craig Dowd throwing up during the 95 final were broadcast - that's a solid fact. The silly "Suzy the waitress" conspiracy theory that followed on from it was daft admittedly, the illness was bad luck. And NZ still took the game to extra time.

Its tricky though isnt it, I dont really see how we can judge true greatness with what if's and maybes. We have no idea how much the All Blacks were effected so how do we go about quantifying the performance. We cant IMO so we just have to take a loss as face value and move on, otherwise its all conjecture and rumour.

That's true enough - I'm more arguing that holding Jonah's lack of a World Cup against his record is a bit harsh.

Rowley wrote:Has anyone used the word PRIME to describe Tyson yet?

Not as yet.

Disappointingly, it's all just been opinion so far too with not enough FACTs.

Rowley wrote:Has anyone used the word PRIME to describe Tyson yet?

You up for a game of Tyson bingo, Jeff?

'Prime', 'long count', 'Gus Tomato', 'Robin Given's fault', 'Don King's fault', 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' and 'he was innocent' constitute a full house, ok?

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Rowley wrote:Has anyone used the word PRIME to describe Tyson yet?

Not as yet.

Disappointingly, it's all just been opinion so far too with not enough FACTs.

Give it time, the online forum rules that govern Tyson debates specify that one cannot be completed without the words PRIME and FACT (normally followed by several exclamation marks)

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Diggers wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Azzy Mahmood wrote:

Diggers wrote:To be fair he never managed to get him or his teamates up for the one game that really mattered in his career against a side the All Blacks should have beaten easily. If the best player on the world playing in the best side in the world at the time couldnt manage to win the world cup thats a massive negative in my book.
Fantastic player but I feel persoanlly the legend is greater than the actual career.

See, I rate Johan Cruyff as the best football player of all time - regardless of not winning the world cup. In a team sport it's much harder to win the big trophies, so I don't hold that against either Lomu or Cruyff.

And besides, most of the 95 All Blacks had food poisoning before "that" game - it's hard to win a match when players are sneaking off to the sidelines to

Allegedly. Just like when they lost at Twickenham last year. None of that goes in the record books Im afraid.

Twickenham was a loss, fair & square. And you're right about the record books. However pictures of Jeff Wilson & Craig Dowd throwing up during the 95 final were broadcast - that's a solid fact. The silly "Suzy the waitress" conspiracy theory that followed on from it was daft admittedly, the illness was bad luck. And NZ still took the game to extra time.

Its tricky though isnt it, I dont really see how we can judge true greatness with what if's and maybes. We have no idea how much the All Blacks were effected so how do we go about quantifying the performance. We cant IMO so we just have to take a loss as face value and move on, otherwise its all conjecture and rumour.

That's true enough - I'm more arguing that holding Jonah's lack of a World Cup against his record is a bit harsh.

Well as they say...its tough at the top. Id agree harsh but Id also have to say fair.

88Chris05 wrote:

Rowley wrote:Has anyone used the word PRIME to describe Tyson yet?

You up for a game of Tyson bingo, Jeff?

'Prime', 'long count', 'Gus Tomato', 'Robin Given's fault', 'Don King's fault', 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' and 'he was innocent' constitute a full house, ok?

Sounds like fun Chris, suspect it will not be the longest of games though. However I should say in the interests of fairness spaghetti hans’ write up is an excellent one, just a pity so much effort and ability was not applied to someone more deserving. For me having Tyson in here is akin to having Beckham in football, undoubtedly a figure who has transcended the sport and acheived fame on an almost unprecedented level but nowhere near one of the top four names in the sport.

You know what Jeff, it's odd, because it's always Tyson's KO highlight reels which get fawned over when people evaluate him, but I actually think the best victory of his career was his points win over Tucker.

The myth that Bruno was the first man to wobble Tyson keeps growing, but Tucker got there first with that uppercut (second round, was it?) which clearly had Tyson buzzed. But after that Tyson just took heed, settled down to his boxing and actually outjabbed and out-timed Tucker, who was a very good technical boxer and didn't lose again for another six years by which time he was thirty-five, and that was again a points loss to Lennox Lewis.

Grossly overrated by the casual fan though he is, Tyson did show that there was more in his arsenal than just brute strength and big punching in that fight. Everyone knew he could simply overwhelm the second-raters like Bruno, Berbick and Williams, but putting a boxing clinic on a fairly nimble, 6'5" and 230 lb Tucker was another matter.

That said, he still shouldn't be anywhere near this project, mind you!

I've voted for Phelps. I put a lot of weight on the Olympics, and he is statistically the best of all time by some distance. I accept that swimmers can compete in a lot of events, but to be the best at them all in a worldwide sport is stunning.

Tyson - Shouldn't be near the list for me. Not only is he not amongst the very best boxers, but his character would probably prevent him from even getting into a Hall of Fame against my parameters.

Lomu - Doesn't seem to have had much longevity.

Ruth - Don't know much about him apart from the name.

Interesting group. I don't think it's the strongest we've had, but it contains some great names again.

Tyson: you could argue that at his peak he was invincible in a way which no heavyweight (and perhaps no boxer) has ever been. The crowd knew he'd knock out his opponent early and in spectacular fashion, he knew, and more importantly his opponent probably knew. Amazing raw power, added to underrated footwork (IMO). His fame is unarguable, and I guess more people know who Mike Tyson is than anyone else in this group, although not necessarily for the right reasons.

But this poll is not for the most famous sportsperson of all time, but the greatest. IN that regard, Tyson surely falls well short. First of all, consider only his record: his peak was too short and his fall too spectacular, so that most boxing fans surely wouldn't have him in their overall top 10. Secondly of course, there is the character issue: some people on here have said they don't mind what people get up to off the court - I do - but in any case surely what happens on the court has to matter, and what Tyson did to Holyfield, well that really disqualifies him utterly in my view. I would be very disappointed if Tyson progressed from this round TBH. Thankfully so far our eminent boxing members are all in agreement on this.

Babe Ruth: you see, I think baseball is more global than a lot on here give it credit. It has major leagues in the US of course, but also places like Japan, South Korea, Cuba and Holland. I don't think it is much less global now than rugby union was in the early 90s say. It is certainly a more spread sport than US football, and was for a while an Olympic sport. Again I think people confuse "not represented in the UK" with "not global" (as some did with basketball).

I am not an expert on baseball by any means but I do know probably more about the sport than most on here (as a cricket coach we frequently look at baseball to see if there's anything to be learned there - often there is). I do think it sometimes gets a bad rep, because seemingly for long stretches not much happens, but actually I find it quite absorbing - it's very tactical, and very very hard to play at a decent standard.

In this sport it seems that Babe Ruth is THE stand-out hero for most. I don't know enough about the game to make a coherent case, but I do have some concerns which may stop me from voting for him. Whilst baseball now may be fairly global, I think it's fair to say that was far from the case when Babe Ruth was playing. Also, whilst we have considered someone like Bradman, it is because his record has stood the test of time, and by some margin. Babe Ruth's records haven't necessarily.

Lomu: when you look at the average winger size today, you can see the impact Lomu had on rugby. Before him, big men played in the pack, strong men could play at centre, but wingers were small and nimble-footed. Lomu of course was big and nimble-footed, and kudos to whoever realised that a winger who could not only run around people (as Lomu could) but could also go through them had twice the weapons of a small winger.

The remarkable thing about Lomu was not how he dominated the 95 WC, but how 4 years later, with rugby well into its professionalisation and everyone prepared, he repeated the feat. His first try in the semi-final against France when he bounced off no fewer than 5 would-be tacklers was amazing. In 2000 against Australia, he scored a similar last-minute try to win the game - the only time he received the ball in any space in the 2nd half and made it count.

There are however weaknesses in the Lomu case. His career was relatively short, but I'm not sure that's something you can reasonably hold against him (unlike Tyson, his short time at the top was not of his own doing). He never won the WC is a harsh criticism (it is after all a team sport, and in rugby union and particularly on the wing, you can't win a match on your own) but does have some merit when you think about the 99 WC. Great though Lomu's 2 tries in that match were, he was (partially) at fault for at least a couple of the french tries scored against them. Because great though Lomu was at attacking, he was a pretty poor defender, both 1-1 and also in his positioning for kicks - France and South Africa in particular in the 3rd place play-off both exploited this very well in 99 by kicking in behind him and turning him. Lomu's kicking game was also fairly poor.

So great though Lomu was, he was by no means the complete rugby player. There were signs that teams were beginning to figure him out, even before his kidney problems forced him out the game. Phenomenal though he was, I wouldn't rank him as my top rugby player necessarily, so can't bring myself to vote for him here.

This leaves Phelps, but by no means as default. I agree with Chris, it will be a travesty if Phelps doesn't make the last 8 of this process. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that winning 8 gold medals at a single olympics is realistically only possible in swimming, don't let that fool you: Phelps won everything he tried to - it is the equivalent roughly of a sprinter winning the 100, 200, 400 and both relays (and maybe even chuck in the long jump for good measure). Impossible you say? Not for Michael Phelps.

But Phelps's excellence isn't just a one-off. In 2004 he won 6 of the 8 events he entered, and in 2012 his beating of Lochte in the 200 IM was one of the moments of the games for me. AS Chris pointed out, swimmers' peaks are usually short, and swimming is a young person's sport (25 is considered old usually). Anyone winning anything in 3 successive olympics is an amazing achievement.

Comments about swim-suits are way off the mark, as Chris pointed out.

I will pick out 3 moments from the 2008 Olympics to try and convince anyone who still requires it:
- the 100 Fly against Cavic. Many thought the only event in which Phelps was vulnerable, and vulnerable he was. In an amazing race, Cavic took an early lead, but in the last 25 m Phelps chased him down with every stroke, and took the touch (a few still claim in controversial circumstances, but Cavic himself has said that that was the highlight of his career - being beaten by 1/100th of a second by "the greatest swimmer of all time"). The only time I think I have ever supported a US athlete so strongly and cheered when I saw he'd won. Because he is an amazing athlete, and he deserved the record.
- the 200m Free swim, where he swam an unthought of 1.42.
- the medley relay, where his swim took the US team from 1 bodylength behind to 1 in front. With Eamon Sullivan taking the free-style leg for the Australians, the Americans needed a solid lead, and Phelps delivered one in his last swim of the games - how he dug so deep after so many races I have no idea.

A brilliant athlete, also a genuine guy, and deservedly a contender for the overall win.

Great post, Mike. The 100m butterfly final in Beijing 2008 which you mentioned is one of my favourite sporting moments ever. Everything which made Phelps so great was on show in that one.

Remember, too, that Phelps had already swum fifteen races in seven days before that final, while Cavic had been taking it easy that week in comparison, waiting for him. And still Phelps dragged out the victory from somewhere, against a 50m butterfly world champion and 100m butterfly world record holder. Remarkable.

88Chris05 wrote:Great post, Mike. The 100m butterfly final in Beijing 2008 which you mentioned is one of my favourite sporting moments ever. Everything which made Phelps so great was on show in that one.

Remember, too, that Phelps had already swum fifteen races in seven days before that final, while Cavic had been taking it easy that week in comparison, waiting for him. And still Phelps dragged out the victory from somewhere, against a 50m butterfly world champion and 100m butterfly world record holder. Remarkable.

Damn you Chris, I unwittingly switched to a David Coleman voice just for the last word. Please don't do that to me again.

Some days it's a group of death, the others a group of dearth. Today, I'm afraid it's the latter (IMHO).

I've actually gone for Ruth based on his legend transcending his sport and his time but any (and at the same time none) of the competitors could go through. I don't think I could justify any of them as GOAT, merely select one as GOTG (TG = This Group).

Incidentally - I also felt duty bound to switch to the Colemen voice (from spitting Image) at the word remarkable.

Quite remarkable.

Between Ruth and Phelps for me but will go for Ruth as he needs the votes more at this stage.

Tyson barely a top 10 heavyweight and pound for pound wouldnn't trouble the top 50. A phenomenal talent who's star shone very brightly for a short period of time and a tough night's work for any heavyweight, but when it comes down to it, his career fell short of genuine greatness.

superflyweight wrote:Between Ruth and Phelps for me but will go for Ruth as he needs the votes more at this stage.

Tyson barely a top 10 heavyweight and pound for pound wouldnn't trouble the top 50. A phenomenal talent who's star shone very brightly for a short period of time and a tough night's work for any heavyweight, but when it comes down to it, his career fell short of genuine greatness.

sfw
While not a huge boxing fan, and accepting that Tyson's career didn't in the end amount to very much, where do you think he'd have rated if he had lived up to the promise that his early fights showed? I certainly don't recall another heavyweight who was quite so brutal on his opponents (I'm a few years too young to have seen Foreman of the early 70s, who I understand was somewhat similar inhis ability to dispatch opponents quickly).

I agree that he doesn't really merit a position in the top 64 sports people of all time, but he is certainly someone who is worth extra discussions as in a way one of the greatest examples of someone who had the physical ability but not the capacity to make the most of it.

A bit the opposite of Steve Davis from yesterday's discussion, who was someone who was absolutely meticulous in preparation and at making sure he got the maximum out of the ability he had.