v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 15

First topic message reminder :

Yesterday’s group was dominated by one of the hot favourites for this entire competition Mohammed Ali, he eventually ended the day with 60% of the vote, the biggest winning round one margin so far. Following him into round 2 in second place was Ayrton Senna, who captured 22% of the vote, missing out on round 2 and leaving the tournament at the first stage are Richie McCaw and Martin Johnson

Today we have two articles written by forum members, please feel free to submit your own argument below for the ones 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

Andrew Johns- Rugby- Championed by 88chris05

As all sports fans know, the question of whether or not it's fair to judge the best of today's crop from any given sport to the greats who went before is one which is never far away, regardless of if you're in the stands, out on the pitch or mulling over the finer points of sport over a pint in the pub.

However, former professional Australian Rugby League forward and now highly-respected broadcaster, Phil Gould, had his own take on this matter when asked if Andrew 'Joey' Johns, the talismanic halfback of the Newcastle Knights, Australia and New South Wales, could be compared to the rugby league legends gone before such as Wally Lewis, Mal Meninga, Keith Holman and Peter Sterling in an attempt to decipher just who was / is the greatest player to have graced the thirteen-man code of rugby.

"Yes, it's totally unfair to compare players from past generations to Andrew Johns - because he's just better than they were."

Having had the pleasure of watching Johns ply his trade during his peak years, which I watched with awe as a young lad, then I'd overwhelmingly agree with Gould's statement. To me, Andrew Johns was the greatest rugby league player I've seen, for so many different reasons. A fantastic and natural leader, a charismatic figure who always played with a smile on his face, a tremendous player under pressure, one of the best goal kickers in either form of rugby and, of course, a genuine match winner, right from his remarkable NRL debut in 1993 (which we'll get to in just a second) until his retirement, brought about a little prematurely due to a long string of injuries, in 2007.

The dye of greatness was cast early as the nineteen year old Johns, only playing because of an injury to the Newcastle Knights' regular (up until then) halfback Matthew Rodwell, produced surely the greatest and most jaw-dropping debut match in the history of the NRL in late 1993 against the South Sydney Rabbitohs. Playing with the wide smile and robust confidence which would mark his whole career, Johns kicked seven out of seven field goals, scored two tries (one of them an absolutely superb burst, breaking through what looked to surely be a blind alley) and even threw in a drop goal for good measure. His 23-point performance earned him the Man of the Match award and, in the space of eighty minutes, the man affectionately known as 'Joey' to his fans had gone from being a virtual unknown to one of the hottest properties in rugby league.

But really, looking back, nobody should have been surprised - that was Johns all over, expanding the parameters of what most rugby league fans thought was possible, or thought was the norm. Half backs in rugby league weren't meant to carry that constant threat of scoring via a try the way Johns did. Nor were they supposed to own defensive / tackling skills which most full-backs or prop forwards would be pleased with. But with Johns, it was as if you could put him anywhere on the field and, almost effortlessly, he could produce the goods in that position.

It's generally considered that Johns' peak years were from around 1997 to 2003, but to gain a full appreciation of just how brilliantly Johns could totally run and dominate proceedings on the pitch, I'd suggest seeking out his comeback match in the 2005 State of Origin series. New South Wales, without the injured Johns, had been beaten in the series opener by Queensland - but as soon as Johns returned for the second match, the whole series had a totally different feel to it. In the second game, 'Joey' was magnificent; his kicking, as ever, was superb, and he was involved in each try New South Wales scored that day, I believe, the pick of his contributions being an outstanding piece of vision in the form of a sharpe, short pass through two Queensland players to Danny Buderas - another try conjoured out of nothing.

It must have been particularly satisfying for Johns to have forced a couple of errors from Queensland's Darren Lockyer in that match, as a side note. By 2005, Johns was considered a little past his best and, with his constant struggles with injuries, there were some who felt that Lockyer had now taken his place as the world's best player. But by consistently drawing the mistake from Lockyer with his knack for waiting as long as possible before unloading the dangerous ball at just the right moment, Johns reminded everyone that, when he was at his best, he was still rugby league's finest exponent.

Writing this, I'm also reminded of how Johns, who by now was a long-serving captain of the Knights, dragged them kicking and screaming to victory over the St. George Dragons, capping off an amazing performance with a high-pressure, last-second conversion in 2003. Or I could harp on about how, when seemingly running in to a complete dead end in the final few seconds of the 1997 Grand Final against the Manly Sea Eagles, Johns somehow spun and fired off the telling pass which let in Steve Albert to get over the line and secure a first Premiership title. In fact, I'm reminded of a lot of great Johns moments where he made the key difference between defeat and victory, because there were so many of them.

And his importance is demonstrated by the decline in fortunes of both the Newcastle Knights and New South Wales since his retirement. After winning the Premiership in 1997 and 2001, the Knights are now a shadow of their former selves. New South Wales, after being comfortably on top in the State of Origin series of the nineties and early twenty-first century, without Johns they now find themselves being dominated by Queensland each and every series - the 2012 edition was the seventh in succession which they've lost.

Some players are fortunate enough to tick of the big, notable achievements of their sport. Johns, however, collected such accolades as if they were stamps. By the time of his retirement, he was the leading points scorer in the 99-year history of Australian national rugby league, with 2,176 from his 249 matches. He was the first player ever to win the Golden Boot (awarded to the player judged to have been the best in the world that year) twice, doing so in 1999 and 2001. He is the only man to have won the Dally M medal (awarded to the best player that year in Australia) three times, having scooped it up in 1998, 1999 and 2002. At the Rugby League World Cup of 1995, Johns was voted the Player of the Tournament. He completed his domestic set by earning the prestigious Clive Churchill medal, given to the Man of the Match in a Grand Final, in 2001.

And that was all while he was playing. In retirement, Johns was voted by the publication 'Rugby League Week' as the greatest player of the past thirty years (1978-2008). In 2012, Johns was names as one of rugby league's 'Immortals', only the eighth man to receive the honour (and the quickest to do so since retiring) in the history of the game.

There is not a single box left unticked. When Johns was forced to retire in 2007, John Fordham stated, "He's the best player I've ever seen in either code of rugby, and there are people out there far more qualified than myself who will say the exact same." Well, I'm far less qualified than Fordham, but I must still agree with him wholeheartedly. Andrew Johns was like no other rugby league player I've seen before or since. You just kept waiting and waiting for that poor showing one day, or the bad run of form which must surely come eventually - but it never did.

To me, rugby league just isn't the same without him. There was something indomitable about Johns when he played, and it was such a joy to watch; the way he could beat his man, break up opposition attacks, his fantastic play-making ability and, of course, his goal kicking which carved out a place for himself in the record books. Often, when 'Joey' returned from an injury lay off, Newcastle Knights fans would pack the (then known as) Marathon Stadium with tribute banners reading, 'Finally God has come back to Marathon.' I, for one, wish that were possible.

Andrew Johns - simply the greatest rugby league player of all time

Henry Armstrong- Boxing- Championed by superflyweight

It's probably the case that for all but the more historically minded posters from the boxing forum, Henry Armstrong is going to be a bit of a mystery name. However, "Homicide Hank" has every right to be considered in this process and his exploits known to a wider audience. Armstrong might not be a household name but amongst keen boxing historians, he's pretty much a universal pick in the top 5 pound for pound fighters of all time. The respected IBRO picked him as the third greatest fighter of all time (Sugar Ray Robinson and Harry Greb took the top 2 spots).

Having turned pro in 1931, Armstrong fought frequently (he'd eventually rack up 181 fights by the time he retired) mostly with great success until in 1937 his career really took off. Incredibly so! Henry fought 27 times in 1937. 27!!! Unthinkable now when the top fighters barely manage three fights in a year. In the first 22 of those 27 fights he won 21 of them by knockout. In the 23rd fight he knocked out reigning champion, Petey Sarron in the 6th round to win the featherweight world title. He won his remaining four fights of 1937 with four more knockouts. So across 27 fights in 1937, Armstrong won 27 times and 26 of those victories came by knockout. Added to that he now had the featherweight title belt in his possession. A truly incredible year but Armstrong was about to surpass it. What Armstrong did in 1938 is simply the greatest calendar year any boxer has ever had. Harry Greb's 1922 is amazing but Armstrong's 1938 is staggering and almost beyond comprehension.

Homicide Hank managed 14 wins out of 14 fights in 1938 - all while he was still reigning featherweight champion. He'd continue the run of knockouts he's accumulated in 1937 by knocking out his first 7 opponents of the year (including future champion, Chalky Wright). In his 8th fights of the year, the very good Baby Arizmendi would see the final bell to end the run of knockouts but not the run of victories. However, Armstrong's finest moments were just around the corner. Armstrong jumped up a couple of weight divisions to challenge the great welterweight champion Barney Ross. Armstrong weighing in at less than the lightweight limit comprehensively beat the great Ross over 15 rounds to add the welterweight title to his featherweight title. Not satisfied with this, Armstrong immediately challenged the excellent lightweight champion Lou Ambers. Armstrong would take the title courtesy of a split decision and became the first person to ever hold three different world titles at different weights concurrently. In an era when there were only eight different weight divisions, Armstrong held nearly half of the available belts on offer.

Much has been made of Manny Pacquiao’s weight hopping exploits over the last few years and whilst what Manny has done has been impressive, it pales in comparison to Armstrong’s exploits. Armstrong gathered almost half of the available weight belts in less than 12 months and did so by beating the best men in each weight class. There were no weight stipulations imposed on his opponents and Armstrong would take the welterweight title whilst weighing in as a lightweight.

Although Armstrong would contentiously lose the lightweight title in a rematch with Ambers, he would go on to defend the welterweight title several times and would have a pop at the middleweight title (which he would have won but for the judges dubiously scoring his fight with Cerefino Garcia a draw). He'd eventually lose the welterweight title in 1940 to Fritzie Zivic but he would continue to fight until 1945.

Armstrong would finish with a record of 150 wins (101 knockouts) from his 181 fights but it's the period between 1937 and 1940 that truly stands out. From 1937 to late 1940, he lost only one fight. His record against topflight competition during this time was 59 wins, 1defeat and 1 draw with 51 knockouts. He scored 27 straight knockouts during 1937-1938. It's arguable that during that 3 year period, Armstrong was the greatest and most dominant sportsman on the planet.

Let ‘s turn to the excellent Monte Cox to get a picture of what Armstrong was like in the ring:

"Armstrong was a marvel of the ring. He worked at a fast pace, had quick hands and unlike most fighters seemed to pick up speed as the rounds went on. He was also a strong puncher and defensively his bob and weave style kept him from receiving the full impact of his opponent’s blows. The truth of Henry Armstrong is that he had much better boxing skills than some give him credit for.

Most fighters tried to run from Henry, but he never let them get away. He stuck to his opponent’s like superglue and drove them into a corner or trapped them against the ropes and them proceeded to give them a good pasting. Fighters who tried to stand their ground against Hank had difficulty keeping up with his work rate. He would overwhelm them until they were forced to back up and then he would chase them down, pounding away until they were beaten men.

Upon his death it was discovered that Armstrong’s heart was a third larger than that of the average person. This allowed him to fight at a ferocious pace for 15 rounds without loss of breath. It seems certain that he could have done the same thing in a 20 round bout."

Armstrong won't be the most celebrated name of the 64 men and women that will be considered in this process, but there should be no doubt that he is fully deserving of his place among the greatest sports stars that the world has ever seen.

Ah, the Borg collective have arrived. Shame they can't send 7 of 9 to give an opinion.

I love seeing posters from parts of the forum I never visit being just as argumentative as the rugby lads

We, the Dig Bunch, have also decided we will address ourselves as a collective today as we think it might be quite fun. We haven't voted yet but we may just vote for Laver for no other reason than to annoy the Main Event boys.

Diggers wrote:We, the Dig Bunch, have also decided we will address ourselves as a collective today as we think it might be quite fun. We haven't voted yet but we may just vote for Laver for no other reason than to annoy the Main Event boys.

Know very little about tennis but based on their opinions voiced earlier about Tyson if they don't rate Laver I am fast becoming convinced of his greatness.

As the non-collective TME boys have advised against it our vote today goes to Laver.

We couldn't vote for Johns as Rugby League is not a widely enough played sport.

Nor could we vote Armstrong as we voted Ali yesterday.

We would not touch Billie Jean with a barge pole as she had really rubbish glasses and named herself after a Michael Jackson song.

Taking into account the evidence presented and the source of the evidence, here is the official statement of the milkyboy kids:

'The milkyboy kids are strong and tough, and only rod laver is good enough.'

I am the only legitimate crew. As I am clearly the most global poster.. one man can not do that..

We will be sticking up for woods nicklaus fed bradman and bolt only. From here on in..

The tragedy of Spaghetti Hans is he seems quite knowledgable and makes some good points in posts, but banging on about this Main Event thing that only exists in his head means everyone just laughs at him.

I like hans--crazy bat..

Just remember - you're never alone with schizophrenia

Hehe..

legendkillarV2 wrote:

But when we consider the facts, it is clear that the story of Rod Laver’s greatness is simply a myth.

Facts are facts. He has done what other male GOAT candidates haven't. Calendar Grand Slam

And twice for that matter, lest we forget, in 1962 and 1969.

VTR wrote:The tragedy of Spaghetti Hans is he seems quite knowledgable and makes some good points in posts, but banging on about this Main Event thing that only exists in his head means everyone just laughs at him.

True, but then we all need a good laugh now and then so he serves a good purpose.

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

But when we consider the facts, it is clear that the story of Rod Laver’s greatness is simply a myth.

Facts are facts. He has done what other male GOAT candidates haven't. Calendar Grand Slam

And twice for that matter, lest we forget, in 1962 and 1969.

Laverfan,

Did you even read our piece simultaneously acknowledging and discrediting Rod Laver?

If you had, you would have seen that we presented an unbreakable case against him, a case built upon a foundation of indisputable facts and held together by expert opinion.

Since your username itself is a tribute to Laver, we presume that you are a Laver Ol' Boy. So, if you are capable and knowledgeable enough for the task, feel free to refute our case and make your own case as to why Laver is an all-time great.

Just a few questions for all the Ol' Boys out there: Was Wilt Chamberlain a better basketball player than Michael Jordan? Was Joe Davis a better snooker player than Stephen Hendry? Was Don 'Broken by Bodyline' Bradman better than The Little Master - Sachin Tendulkar?

Hmm. I know it's a random draw but two in the same sport should not face each other in the groups.

In any case, I vote Laver.

Duty281 wrote:11 Grand Slams speaks for itself, so voted for Rod Laver.

Aye, Laver.

Only person to do the Grand Slam twice.

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:

laverfan wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

But when we consider the facts, it is clear that the story of Rod Laver’s greatness is simply a myth.

Facts are facts. He has done what other male GOAT candidates haven't. Calendar Grand Slam

And twice for that matter, lest we forget, in 1962 and 1969.

Laverfan,

Did you even read our piece simultaneously acknowledging and discrediting Rod Laver?

If you had, you would have seen that we presented an unbreakable case against him, a case built upon a foundation of indisputable facts and held together by expert opinion.

Since your username itself is a tribute to Laver, we presume that you are a Laver Ol' Boy. So, if you are capable and knowledgeable enough for the task, feel free to refute our case and make your own case as to why Laver is an all-time great.

Just a few questions for all the Ol' Boys out there: Was Wilt Chamberlain a better basketball player than Michael Jordan? Was Joe Davis a better snooker player than Stephen Hendry? Was Don 'Broken by Bodyline' Bradman better than The Little Master - Sachin Tendulkar?

Using the same technology I hope

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:Was Don 'Broken by Bodyline' Bradman better than The Little Master - Sachin Tendulkar?

Broken by bodyline? Ah yes, that would be the series where Bradman 'only' managed to average 56....Still higher than Tendulkar's whole career average. Says a lot about Bradman that he can have a poor series by his standards and still average more than Sachin has done over 194 test matches.

Tendulkar was lucky to be in our 64, let alone be compared to the Don.

Was Wilt Chamberlain a better basketball player than Michael Jordan?NO

Was Joe Davis a better snooker player than Stephen Hendry?NO

Was Don 'Broken by Bodyline' Bradman better than The Little Master - Sachin Tendulkar?YES

I would say that Rod Laver dominated tennis for a decade in a way that Federer, for all his genius and fitness, has been unable to achieve (largely thanks to Rafa).

He reached a Wimbledon Final unseeded, very difficult to do, was outstandingly the best player when he turned pro, and confirmed his genius when he won his Slam in the Open era.

Rosewall would always have been a strong rival, but to compare Gonzales is a bit apples and oranges, Pancho being ten years older than the Rocket, almost of a different era.

You can only beat the best of your era, utterly pointless to compare tennis now with tennis then, and Rod Laver achieved that over an entire decade.

He did a calendar Grand Slam in the Pro age? Laver for me then...

The Don broken by Bodyline. Laughable comment. Suggest The Main Event lads gets his head checked.

You have to flip it on its head and say how good must someone be if they can average 56 and that is seen as a failure?

Armstrong for me. I think he could be champion in pretty much any era fighting exactly as he was back at his peak. Not as convinced it would be the same with Laver.

@Spaghetti-Hans...

You have forgotten Laver's contributions in doubles and DC, a rarity in these days, including Captain Fraser's Antique Show.

From The Education of a Tennis Player by Bud Collins/Rod Laver (p. 241)

Rosewall, 39 (17 years away from DC), Laver (11 years away from DC), Anderson 38 (15 years away from DC), Newcombe 29 (6 years away from DC) and Fraser (non-playing captain, 10 years away from DC), beat USofA 5-0 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Davis_Cup

Pancho became a model for Agassi and Federer, lest you forget.

You have summed up Laver statistically which is fair, but you forget the environment in which he won the GSes. Remember, today's Murray v Federer was played in a stadium called Rod Laver Arena.

A magnificent player, IMVHO.

PS: Laver was present today at the AO 2013 SF, as was Shane Warne to catch a Federer ball.

VTR wrote:The Don broken by Bodyline. Laughable comment. Suggest The Main Event lads gets his head checked.

You have to flip it on its head and say how good must someone be if they can average 56 and that is seen as a failure?

Bradman was actually the best batsman on either side in that series.

Broken?

The man is a legend, if there ever was one.

Spaghetti - is your verdict on Laver as official as your verdict on the Fed-Murray match?
(For those not on the tennis forum, the 'Official' S-H verdict was a 3-set win for Fed)

as was Shane Warne to catch a Federer ball.

Tennis is becoming a lot more violent.

Voted for Laver, though the write-up very nearly swung me over to Johns. I'm no RL expert, but he's clearly the outstanding player in his position (any position?) and that deserves a lot of praise even if the sport isn't as widely played as some.

Still, it's got to be the Rocket. Complete legend and gent to boot.

I honestly think that Armstrong's feat of holding the feather, light and welterweight titles simultaneously as well as challenging for the middleweight title at the same time is one of the greatest sporting achievements of all time. He arguably should have held half of all of the belts in boxing at the time.

Unbelieveable, never to be repeated achievement and he gets my vote.

so do we think armstrong is the greatest pound for pound boxer.

How does maywether stack up?

mystiroakey wrote:so do we think armstrong is the greatest pound for pound boxer.

How does maywether stack up?

As I said earlier think Armstrong has the best argument to usurp Robinson, certainly if anyone is going to do it Henry’s is the argument I am most persuaded by. Floyd is a truly talented fighter but is so hard for a modern guy to compare because they fight with such infrequency in comparison. However even if you try to avoid holding that against them the first thing you probably have to ask is did they fight the best of their era and with Mayweather the elephant in the room is always going to be Manny. Was a good two years him and Floyd were operating in the same division and outside of ego and silliness (on both camps part I should add) they chose not to lock horns. Can argue about how much it hurts their respective legacy but it has to hurt to some degree.

However as anyone who has spent any time on the boxing boards knows this issue has been debated to death so I apologise in advance if it ends up derailing this one, as this is not really the place where that particular can of worms should be reopened.

mystiroakey wrote:so do we think armstrong is the greatest pound for pound boxer.

How does maywether stack up?

Its very subjective and depends on how you define "greatness" I think. Even the term "pound for pound" is fairly subjective in how its interpreted. In my experience I would say Mayweather would be almost certainly considered top 20 of all time, with a fair number of people having him sneak into top 10. But still some way short of being the absolute best.

88Chris05 wrote:

Spaghetti-Hans wrote:Was Don 'Broken by Bodyline' Bradman better than The Little Master - Sachin Tendulkar?

Broken by bodyline? Ah yes, that would be the series where Bradman 'only' managed to average 56....Still higher than Tendulkar's whole career average. Says a lot about Bradman that he can have a poor series by his standards and still average more than Sachin has done over 194 test matches.

Tendulkar was lucky to be in our 64, let alone be compared to the Don.

You seriously believe that Don Bradman was better than Sachin Tendulkar? There is absolutely no evidence for this ludicrous claim.

The Little Master posted 100 100s in international cricket. Bradman notched a mere 29. Tendulkar dominated both forms of the game, whereas Bradman never bothered to put on the 'baggy green' in limited overs cricket - because his game was offensively limited. Bradman's greatest achievement was scoring 300 in day against a pre-WWII bowling attack. Tendulkar plundered 200* in a couple of hours against the premiere bowling attack in the world, containing the best fast bowler ever - Dale Steyn.

Tendulkar won the scoring title at the 2003 World Cup and lead his team to World Cup glory in 2011. Bradman's Australia never won the World Cup. The comparison is even more shocking when you consider that Tendulkar carried the hopes of a nation and did so admirably, with unprecedented success. Whereas Bradman wilted under the pressure of Anglo-Australian rivalry. When Jardine cranked up the heat and physicality during the Bodyline series, Bradman's only option was to go crying to the Australian Prime Minister, Joesph Lyons, who promptly dismissed Bradman and Team Australia's complaints and ordered them to continue the series. Australia were demolished and Bradman averaged a paltry 36 - the equivalent of averaging 12-14 in modern terms - hence Wisden labelled him Don 'Broken by Bodyline' Bradman in their almanack.

The fact of the matter is, Tendulkar would never be cleaned bowled for zero by an amateur bowler in the most important innings of his career. No, The Little Master scored a 'money' 85 in the biggest game of all-time, the 2011 World Cup SF vs Pakistan - watched by 400 million people worldwide. Bradman scored zero when he only needed 4, in a dead rubber game watched by a crowd of 36 men and a dog at The Oval.

There aren't enough s in the world to do that last 'contribution' of yours justice, Spaghetti Hans. Your argument is weaker than a pint of Fosters and has more holes in it than a colander.

Am I naive or did one day cricket not actually exist in Bradman's day?
I think the fact Tendulkar played far more cricket than Bradman makes the comparison of centuries vs centuries void.

sodhat wrote:Am I naive or did one day cricket not actually exist in Bradman's day?

Exactly - that's Spaghetti's little clue to let you know he's wumming. You have to pick up on these things, or you could think he's being serious.

88Chris05 wrote:There aren't enough s in the world to do that last 'contribution' of yours justice, Spaghetti Hans. Your argument is weaker than a pint of Fosters and has more holes in it than a colander.

False.

Our argument is airtight and is based on a series of indisputable facts. Tendulkar did score 200* in 120-odd minutes against Steyn and Co. Tendulkar did make a clutch 85 in the biggest game of all-time. Bradman's Bodyline complaints were dismissed by the Australian Prime Minister and he did get cleaned bowled for zero in his career-defining innings.

Feel free to break down our argument and counter our facts if you have the ammunition. Otherwise, we win this debate.

You can't call a win for yourself in a debate!

"We" = you and your carers, I presume?

You're one of the more charming wums going though, I'll give you that!

Spaghetti: Wish you'd start posting on the Golf board . . . . . . .
You talk the biggest load of tripe imaginable.
Get some perspective man (or woman, sorry).

Don Bradman 52 tests 29 centuries
Sachin tendulkar 194 tests 51 centuries with protection from fast bowlers and a heavier bat with smaller boundaries and batting friendly pitches.

Comparing Bradman to Tendulkar is like comparing Pele to Rooney.

Stella wrote:Comparing Bradman to Tendulkar is like comparing Pele to Rooney.

Harsh and unfair

Spoiler:

kwinigolfer wrote:Spaghetti: Wish you'd start posting on the Golf board . . . . . . .
You talk the biggest load of tripe imaginable.
Get some perspective man (or woman, sorry).

Kwini, please...its men or women plural...or men and women.....

Ta on your thoughts on maywether- Personally i think he is some fighter!

Not that i know enough about the past..

I was one of (probally many) big boxing fans in the tyson, bruno, nigel ben, eubank eras.. But after them i dont have much interest. Bar the odd 'big fight'

Not enough big fights any more!! shame!


Hans you devil!! coime to the golf boards.. I could do with more laffs!

I wondered where spaghetti had got to... I dont see any reason why you can't vote for Rod, especially as hes currently not up against Sampras or Federer in the group. He gave the game a name in the 60's. when there were many greatp players, even if not as many.

Spaghetti you still there? Quick question. What IS TME? Is this like wrestling when 3 wrestlers get together to make "nexus" or "NWO" and go along sabotaging other threads?

Also is there a full draw and brackets for this?

sodhat wrote:Am I naive or did one day cricket not actually exist in Bradman's day?

Not even close to the point. On the back of Hans' brilliantly made and constructed argument I would like to remove my votes for Ali and Robinson. Whilst there were obviously quite decent neither has proven they could win a Prizefighter tournament.

you have to forgive Hans, he's been under a bit of strain since Murray beat Federer earlier today to defy his "official verdict".