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

First topic message reminder :

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 ...

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tyson unified the belts, thing that was simply unthinkable before. That means he fought all the very best of his age. Among those Michael Spinx, unbeaten until then and a Larry Holmes.

It was only unthinkable before because the IBF had only been formed in 1983 so Tyson came around approximately three years after the formation of three governing bodies, in the days of two belts someone holding them both was very common. As an aside if you're going to have your expertise taken seriously spelling Spinks' name correctly would help you along the way.

Plus you can't have Joe Louis going out and Tyson through

Rowley wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: I remember all of those great matches and the buzz surrounding them, people couldn't really believe at what they were seeing.

Remember going to the pictures as a kid and watching a film called Inner Space with Martin Short and thinking it was the best film ever made, caught in on the telly a few weeks ago, it wasn't all that good.

Sorry but Tyson is Star Wars. Glad you had a happy childhood anyway.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

Rowley wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote: I remember all of those great matches and the buzz surrounding them, people couldn't really believe at what they were seeing.

Remember going to the pictures as a kid and watching a film called Inner Space with Martin Short and thinking it was the best film ever made, caught in on the telly a few weeks ago, it wasn't all that good.

Sorry but Tyson is Star Wars. Glad you had a happy childhood anyway.

He is The Phantom Menace, the bits with Jar Jar Binks in specifically.

This is making me seethe, why oh why is Tyson getting more credit than the likes of Louis and Greb. Would also like to know who decided on the boxers included in this because surely asking the section who follows the sport would have been a better idea.

It's all in the name ghosty. He's getting it because his name was bigger rather than his achievements .

I hope Chris/Rowley/captain write the piece for Ali. He would walk in anyways but no one could sell him more poetically. Boxing will have a deserving contender or two for the titleby the end

Its meant to be the greatest of all time not the most famous of all time, someone who wouldn't come into serious consideration in his own sport is considered overall, baffles me.

Don't and won't criticise those who put the list together as it is a truly thankless task but as I said previously putting Tyson in is akin to putting Beckham in for football. Fame is not enough.

Tyson like Beckham? Eitherv you are joking or have little understanding of boxing and football. I suspect both.

A 38 year old Larry Holmes who was a shell of himself.

To be honest, I find Spaghetti's article to be nauseating hyperbole (sorry Spaghetti dude), and such seems to be the case when discussing Tyson.

Virtually everyone within boxing circles or who follows the sport closely considers him to be a good/great champion (for a short period) but no one has him anywhere near the top twenty or thirty or probably even forty greatest boxers of all time.

However, the public perception of Tyson is that he was this unbeatable force of nature who's only undoing was himself. I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but I find it quite pathetic how people who probably know next to nothing about boxing history and it's great champions seem to so fervently defend the Tyson legacy. They really believe he was the greatest! They seem to have this vision of this menacing force of nature somehow overpowering and uppercutting his way to victory over Ali, Louis, Foreman etc, without any recognition of his technical and physical limitations. It's the standard pub speech; 'yeah that Tyson he was one bad mofo, no one could beat him, he woulda ruled forever if it wasn't for that jail time and on and on... Most of it is just nonsense in a vacuum.

The only reason I can think of for his inclusion is his fame and notoriety - quite dissapointed really that he should have been included. Devalues the competition somewhat, particularly as there are dozens of better candidates from boxing alone.

Phelps wins this round by a distance even though I have some inherent reservations about his achievements - I'll save them till later



rotapicname

Oh dear what have you done? Away you go Jeff. Have fun!

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Tyson like Beckham? Eitherv you are joking or have little understanding of boxing and football. I suspect both.

Actually, that's pretty close to the mark.

And Rowley is a boxing encyclopaedia by most people's standards.

I think its a little harsh to compare Tyson to Beckham. Beckham even at his very best was nowhere near the best footballer of all time, or even his own generation. Tyson was the best heavyweight in the world for about four or five years and at his very peak could conceivably have beaten most heavyweights in history. Please dont say Beckham is in the next group or something.....

manos de piedra wrote:I think its a little harsh to compare Tyson to Beckham. Beckham even at his very best was nowhere near the best footballer of all time, or even his own generation. Tyson was the best heavyweight in the world for about four or five years and at his very peak could conceivably have beaten most heavyweights in history. Please dont say Beckham is in the next group or something.....

I'm sure Rowley was exaggerating for emphasis but the point holds true.

Neither should be anywhere near a greatest sportsman of all time debate.

emancipator wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:I think its a little harsh to compare Tyson to Beckham. Beckham even at his very best was nowhere near the best footballer of all time, or even his own generation. Tyson was the best heavyweight in the world for about four or five years and at his very peak could conceivably have beaten most heavyweights in history. Please dont say Beckham is in the next group or something.....

I'm sure Rowley was exaggerating for emphasis but the point holds true.

Neither should be anywhere near a greatest sportsman of all time debate.

Correct was making the general point, all be it flippantly, that if one takes their fame out of the equation neither has any business being anywhere near this debate.

I think that tops your previous comments Jezza, questioning Rowleys knowledge of boxing is quite funny. I will openly admit he's forgotten more about the sport than i'll ever know.

I think the Beckham comparison is a fairly apt one in some ways. Obviously Beckham has enjoyed serious longevity which Tyson didn't but in terms of their fame itself being greater than their actual talent its a good comparison. Beckham at his best was up their with the best wingers/midfielders in the game at the time for a while, so not too dissimilar to Tyson being the best HW for a while.

Gordy must love it on this thread, telling people they don't know boxing.. to be fair it does look like he's found a few though.

Tyson - iconic figure, nowhere near worthy of goat status in his own sport. Lomu, a freak of nature more so than a great player, and a star that shone too briefly.

This is a ruth v Phelps showdown for me. On the basis that american-only sports are just that, and there are no rounders players on the shortlist so far, i'll go with phelps for this one, but ultimately i don't see him troubling the top dogs at the business end of the competition.

His record is phenomenal, but short legs, big feet, long body, long arms, double jointed ankles etc. Talented sportsman or another physical freak? Both, i guess, and many of our goat contenders are there because of their physicality giving them an edge in their sport. Obviously, specialising in a range of events where the crossover is manageable and having good team-mates, flatters the gold haul. Still damned impressive mind.

Emanci: I am sorry to say your piece on Federer was quite pathetic too.

Here I am not talking of the fantasies of childhood. I am discussing someone who actually in term of his objective measurable achievements is in the same legue as Ali Foreman or Frazier, and got there by becoming the undisputed world champion of the Heavyweights. And it seems to me, only Ali' unified all the biggest associations of his time simultanously before. I would think that probably some respect was due.

Has to be said that 12 of Phelps gold medals were won in either medleys or relays.

Not quite a scholar of boxing history are you Jezza, there had been over 20 unified or universal heavyweight champions before Ali.

Can I just point out at this point there is not just one division in boxing.

Despite logic and trophies telling me to go for Phelps, I've ended up voting for Lomu. Won over by the excitement factor he brought to the game (in contrast to Phelps and swimming) and his breaking of the winger's mould.

Know next to nothing of baseball and Babe Ruth. His name lives on after all these years so it seems fair to say he transcended the sport. However, without a detailed case being made, I can't vote for him.

Tyson was frighteningly destructive at his peak but, as others have said, it was all for too short a time. Serious character flaws exhibited both inside and outside the ring ultimately mean he has no place anywhere near our potential GOATs.

Good point on Lomu is that he fundamentally changed the way his sport was played

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Has to be said that 12 of Phelps gold medals were won in either medleys or relays.

I can understand relay medals not holding much sway, but why downplay individual medley victories? The 400m medley is typically the most gruelling discipline in swimming. Medley races aren't some jack of all trades race, it's usually a specialised one. Phelps was so great, however, that he could dominate medley, butterfly and, eventually, freestyle as well.

Spitz, Thorpe and Biondi don't have an Olympic individual medley medal between them, which shows that not just any swimmer can excel in them.

Personally Chris I put weight on medals won in the freestyle, the rest I see as a sideshow.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Personally Chris I put weight on medals won in the freestyle, the rest I see as a sideshow.

How come? It's the fastest stroke, sure, but there are three others at the end of the day, all of which require the same amount of hard work and talent to excel in.

Biggest draw back to babe Ruth is that when he played only whites were allowed to play. There was a separate negro league meant to be maybe stronger and he never played against them so hard to judge his quality.

None of the players of the 90s can be put in hall of fame due to the degree of doping so baseball has always been plagued by issues

How does one dope baseball?

Steroids they were all on it to hit ball further google Barry bonds etc. all banned from hall of fame.

He is home run record holder and no one respects him. Massive scandal

Laserfan:

Just for you take a look .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48U-CRgeUUk

However, the public perception of Tyson is that he was this unbeatable force of nature who's only undoing was himself. I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but I find it quite pathetic how people who probably know next to nothing about boxing history and it's great champions seem to so fervently defend the Tyson legacy.

I know this may be an assumption, but I am assuming that those who watch boxing, but essentially don't follow it saw more of Tyson than say Ali. I know when growing up I saw more of Tyson in his pomp than I did Ali. What I saw of Ali was either the rumble in the jungle or when Enry knocked him down and if your subjected to that during every boxing debate that was on TV at the time, you did wonder about Ali and it wasn't until past media was accessible that I think people begun to see past Tyson and see the great champions of the past. It is like that with any sport though. Some past great champions miss out on a lot of appreciation because of the lack of media coverage at the time.

"I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but I find it quite pathetic how people who probably know next to nothing about boxing history and it's great champions seem to so fervently defend the Tyson legacy."

legendkillarV2 wrote:

However, the public perception of Tyson is that he was this unbeatable force of nature who's only undoing was himself. I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but I find it quite pathetic how people who probably know next to nothing about boxing history and it's great champions seem to so fervently defend the Tyson legacy.

I know this may be an assumption, but I am assuming that those who watch boxing, but essentially don't follow it saw more of Tyson than say Ali. I know when growing up I saw more of Tyson in his pomp than I did Ali. What I saw of Ali was either the rumble in the jungle or when Enry knocked him down and if your subjected to that during every boxing debate that was on TV at the time, you did wonder about Ali and it wasn't until past media was accessible that I think people begun to see past Tyson and see the great champions of the past. It is like that with any sport though. Some past great champions miss out on a lot of appreciation because of the lack of media coverage at the time.

All very true mate, but personally if I had limited knowledge of a certain sport (and this is true of many a sport)and had only been exposed to a couple of his major practioners I would not start passing myself off as an expert and dismissing the opinions of those who follow the sport far more closely than I do. Hence why you will not see me wading into debates on 90% of the boards on here any time soon.

Rowley wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

However, the public perception of Tyson is that he was this unbeatable force of nature who's only undoing was himself. I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but I find it quite pathetic how people who probably know next to nothing about boxing history and it's great champions seem to so fervently defend the Tyson legacy.

I know this may be an assumption, but I am assuming that those who watch boxing, but essentially don't follow it saw more of Tyson than say Ali. I know when growing up I saw more of Tyson in his pomp than I did Ali. What I saw of Ali was either the rumble in the jungle or when Enry knocked him down and if your subjected to that during every boxing debate that was on TV at the time, you did wonder about Ali and it wasn't until past media was accessible that I think people begun to see past Tyson and see the great champions of the past. It is like that with any sport though. Some past great champions miss out on a lot of appreciation because of the lack of media coverage at the time.

All very true mate, but personally if I had limited knowledge of a certain sport (and this is true of many a sport)and had only been exposed to a couple of his major practioners I would not start passing myself off as an expert and dismissing the opinions of those who follow the sport far more closely than I do. Hence why you will not see me wading into debates on 90% of the boards on here any time soon.

Hence why I give many of the boards on here a wide berth. I can say that I have wandered over to many of the boards on here and wonder who in the hell they are talking about

Likewise mate, there are sports I like a bit and thought I'd dip my toes in, two minutes on the baseball on the BBC soon showed me the folly of this idea. I had not frigging idea what they were on about.

I do treat myself to the NFL, yet when I went to the board on here I was very much out of my depth. Even years after watching it I have no idea on the rules.

legend yet you bang on about golf like your an expert..

BTW lads there should never ever be anything wrong with people debating on boards or topics they are layman off- Its trying to make out your an expert which i agree is moronic.

Many people will have grown up with watching tysons insane dominance- but he had no carrer. he could never be considered a goat on that basis- however for entertainment value and the skill level he shown us in this modern era even for a short time in the HW division is surely well up there..

Boxing is a sport that i could personally never ever put up there as one of the best sports.. TBH when is we these aged legendary fighters all half brain dead i think again. Although i do like a decent match up-- et where the heck are there these days..

It is surely one of the only sports being represented in the 64 that is actually getting smaller and less popular(due to the ultimnate fighting stuff i suppose)

legend yet you bang on about golf like your an expert

Where did I say I was an expert and where did I say I didn't follow golf?

Go back to sleep.

When Tyson was young he was a phenomenon. His head
Movement and sheer power was frightening.

He went off the rails as many boxers do but probably more spectacularly so. I
Am a huge boxing fan and whilst I would
never have Tyson in the class's of ray Robinson etc he at his time he would be in top ten of heavy weights.

I would certainly have him above Lennox lewis etc. if only he had been managed properly and had some self discipline.

I think people need to respect other posters a bit more on these threads. All sports are up for debate and the idea is to learn about them. Just because you don't belong to a certain board doesn't mean you should not be able to comment.

Hans actually did a good write up of Tyson (barring the self-indugant opening paragraph). At the end of it he put his hand up to do it otherwise there would have been no Tyson write up.

VTR wrote:At the end of it he put his hand up to do it otherwise there would have been no Tyson write up.

Which would have been a decent indication of most boxing fans thoughts on his inclusion in this process.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

legend yet you bang on about golf like your an expert

Where did I say I was an expert and where did I say I didn't follow golf?

Go back to sleep.

vtr your spot on by the way,,

Rowley wrote:

VTR wrote:At the end of it he put his hand up to do it otherwise there would have been no Tyson write up.

Which would have been a decent indication of most boxing fans thoughts on his inclusion in this process.

Well at the end of it, rightly or wrongly he was in the 64. I got asked if I wanted to champion a cricketer not knowing who it was and volunteered. It turned out to be Brian Lara who is borderline top 64 of all time at best, but I gave it a go rather than sitting behind my keyboard sniping.

mystiroakey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

legend yet you bang on about golf like your an expert

Where did I say I was an expert and where did I say I didn't follow golf?

Go back to sleep.

vtr your spot on by the way,,

I enjoy watching the golf and playing it, though discussing it isn't my cup of tea really. Partially because I ruin my round with a lovely shank out of nowhere with leads to golf related tourettes.

VTR
I was lucky that my rugby write up was for Gareth Edwards - someone I felt very much deserved consideration and strong advocacy, and who I think has a stronger case for being the rugby GOAT than does Lomu (who was great but flawed).

I agree with the comment about using this thread to learn about forgotten greats from other sports - Harry Greb was a name that meant nothing to me, and I wasn't all that familiar with Zatopek, but I can certainly see why they justified being in the discussion.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

legend yet you bang on about golf like your an expert

Where did I say I was an expert and where did I say I didn't follow golf?

Go back to sleep.

vtr your spot on by the way,,

I enjoy watching the golf and playing it, though discussing it isn't my cup of tea really. Partially because I ruin my round with a lovely shank out of nowhere with leads to golf related tourettes.

common occurence golf related tourettes

One of the common arguments about Tyson is that his career was ruined by the three years he lost due to his stint in prison. Undoubtedly he had lost something in that 3 year period but the signs of decline were already there - the first Bruno fight and the loss to Douglas in particular show that Tyson wasn't the unbeatable destructive force he had looked up until that point. His record after prison is poor with not one win against a truly top class oppponent and defeats to the best men he ever fought.

Compare that to Ali who also lost three years of his prime. Post-ban, Ali came back a completely different fighter to the quicksilver, fleet footed boxer who could dance and move for 15 rounds. He was slower, less mobile and took more punches but still found a way to win against genuine top class opponents and against two fellow potential top 10 heavyweights, Foreman and Frazier. Pre-ban Ali was the best heavyweight we ever saw and we were denied the opportunity to see him improve during what should have been his best years but it's what he did post-ban that defines his greatness. We can't say the same for Tyson.

Fair play dummy_half. You, like me and quite a few others are entering into the spirit of this rather than sitting there mocking the choices and the efforts of others. Having done a couple of write ups they take quite a bit of time to do and we should be grateful people are investing their free time in this.

Look at today's group, its lacking as there's only one write-up.

VTR wrote:I think people need to respect other posters a bit more on these threads. All sports are up for debate and the idea is to learn about them. Just because you don't belong to a certain board doesn't mean you should not be able to comment.

This. Surely the point of this thread is not only to debate but also a chance to learn more about sports and sportspeople you don't know much about. In this regard there are two attitudes which I find particularly unhelpful:
- those who say "you don't know about sport x so you're not eligible to comment on person y" - in that case try and educate them on sport x and why person y is what you say they are.
- people who come on with preconceptions and aren't willing to have them challenged. "I won't vote for person y because I know nothing about sport x and in any case I don't value it". Everyone has preconceptions of course, but to have a debate you have to be prepared to listen to what those who are knowledgeable have to say.