v2 G.O.A.T Round 2 Match 9

First topic message reminder :

Today's second match up will see Diego Maradonna face off against both Edwin Moses, Daley Thompson.

Please vote for the participant you believe has achieved the most in sport

Below are the previous round 1 articles written by forum members

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Diego Maradonna- Football- Championed by- Hero

One day, Lionel Messi will possibly prove to be the global game's greatest player, but not yet, and certainly not just because he has blown the all-time number of goals in a calendar year. Messi may be scoring goals at a rate rarely seen since Dixie Dean's heyday, but he does have the advantage of being at the sharp end of probably the greatest club side of all time. Take Messi out of Barcelona and what do you have?

We already have an answer.

In the last World Cup Messi failed to score in five matches as Argentina lost in the quarter-final to Germany whilst his Barca teammates have lifted the Euro twice and the World Cup. It is argued that the Champions League is now a higher standard than the World Cup (not that the presence of Apoel Nicosia in the quarter-finals adds much weight to that view). Whether it is or not is irrelevant when judging Messi because he is playing for the best team in the competition, a team which even without him would be formidable. A truly great player is capable of turning a moderate team into a winning one. Like Diego Maradona.

English attitudes towards Maradona are understandably coloured by the "Hand of God" goal but his notoriety should not obscure his greatness. Maradona turned base materials into gold on both the club and international stage. Napoli were a shambles when they somehow found the cash to buy him in 1984. Fighting relegation had become a way of life with the club surviving by a point the previous season. Maradona turned them into title contenders and in 1986/87 they won the first scudetto in the club's history. A second Serie A title, and Napoli's first European prize, the Uefa Cup, followed. Since Maradona left, the club have not won a trophy.

Maradona was similarly central to Argentina's 1986 World Cup success. Ten of their 14 goals were scored or created by him, and his five goals included superb ones against England and Belgium of the type now associated with Messi. In the final, after West Germany had come back from 2-0 down to level, he supplied the pass for Jorge Burruchaga to score the winner. All this while carrying a knee injury which had threatened to rule him out of the tournament.

Brian Glanville, in The Story of the World Cup, his history of the competition since 1930, wrote: "It will always be remembered as Maradona's World Cup, seldom has a player, even Pele, so dominated the competition. In an era when individual talent was at a premium, defensive football more prevalent than ever, Maradona – squat, muscular, explosive, endlessly adroit – showed that a footballer of genius could still prevail."

This context is another factor in Maradona's primacy. He formerly played in an era when the tactics were negative and the tackling brutal. Maradona's relative lack of impact at Barcelona, and later decline, had much to do with the injuries he suffered including the notorious ankle-break by Andoni Goikoetxea, the "Butcher of Bilbao". Only after the 1990 World Cup, when Maradona carried to the final an Argentine team which was as guilty of these sins as any, did Fifa begin the crackdown which has allowed players like Messi to flourish.

Simply put Maradona was the best player in the most global sport and therefore rightfully should challenge for the biggest prize of all, the G.O.A.T.

Edwin Moses- Athletics- Champion by 88Chris05

122 races, spread over 9 years, 9 months and 9 days.

That's how long Edwin Moses went undefeated in the 400m hurdles. It is by far the most awe-inspring, dominant and lasting winning streak in the history of track and field, and must surely still rank as one of the most remarkable feats in the history of any sport. Michael Johnson in the 400m, Jan Zelezny in the javelin, Keninesa Bekele in the 10,000m - there have been some athletes who have made an even their own, but none of them managed it to the same extend that Moses did.

Edwin Moses, born in Ohio in 1955, was just that little bit different to many other track athletes of his era, or indeed of any other. He was a vegan, first off, and he insisted on keeping a trademark 13-stride pattern to his running between hurdles, waiving the convential technique of either 14 strides or, at least, adapting from 13 to 14 for the bends. He was also a demonstrative campaigner (rather than just a saying but never doing one) against the use of PEDs in sport; indeed, as an athletics administrator, he played a key role in the developemtn and introduction of out-of-competition testing.

Some athletes covered in this process have left an indelible impression on sport through their colourful personalities or roundabout political influence as they have through their purely physical achievements. Granted, Moses' appeal lies solely in his consistent excellent on the track and not much else more, but what an incredible level of excellence it was. He was the Olympic champion in the 400m hurdles in Montreal in 1976, and again in 1984 in Los Angeles. Sure things seldom exist in sport, but it would have required a rival of Moses' to scale some incredibly long odds to deny him a gold medal in Moscow in 1980 as well, had the USA not boycotted the Games. However, even aged thirty-three and certainly a few years removed from his prime, Moses was able to add a bronze medal in the 1988 final in Seoul. He is one of only four men to have won the Olympic 400m hurdles title twice (again, the it's worth repeating that it was surely only America's 1980 boycott which prevented him from standing alone in this regard), but absolutely nobody else has won a medal in three separate Olympic finals in the event.

Moses was also the world champion twice in his discipline, striking gold at the inaugural edition of the championships in 1983 in Helsinki and again in 1987 in Rome. Once more, nobody has outdone Moses' two world titles in the 400m hurdles, despite the fact that he first World Championships didn't take place until Moses was well in to his career and also that Moses competed in an era where these Championships took place only once every four years, rather than the once every two years schedule that we see today.

However, as with all of the great track and field athletes, the medals alone don't quite convey what Moses meant and still means to his event. Just as men like Usain Bolt and Sergei Bubka have expanded the parameters of what sports fans thought was possible the the 100m and pole vault respectively, Moses helped usher in new targets for the 400m hurdles which, by convention wisdom, just shouldn't have been achievable in his time. Before Moses' arrival on the world scene, the Everest of 400m hurdles running was to break the 48 second barrier. Only one man, in fact, had ever done this; John Akki-Bua of Uganda, who had clocked a world best of 47.82 seconds. However, by the time Moses was done, 400m hurdles runners were daring to dream of cracking the 47 second barrier. To the uneducated eye, one whole second seems like nothing. But as anyone in the know can tell you, to reduce the expected gold standard of a one-lap event, hurdles or no, by such a margin and in such a short amount of time is a wonderful feat.

In fact, Moses' world record reign of sixteen years remains one of the longest in the history of track and field. He started off with a 47.64 in the Montreal Olympics of 1976, improved on that mark with 47.45 the following year, took it down further to 47.13 in Milan in 1980 and then, finally, ran a barely believable 47.02 in 1983. As of today, Moses has run 25 of the fastest 400m hurdles times ever recorded - and this is a full quarter of a century after his retirement, in a sport where times considered world class in their own era are usually not good enough to even threaten such status a decade and a half later.

Consistency, continuity and forward-thinking were the key, and Moses was a pioneer in the latter, helping to bring about eligibility reforms for Olympic athlets in 1979. Without his input, it's likely that many subsequently great athletes the world over would have had to cut their careers short due to financial pressures, ala Mark Spitz who was forced to leave the sport of swimming after bagging his historical seven gold medals at the 1972 Munich Games. But with the drive of Moses and his desire to help bring about change, Olympic athletes were henceforth able to gain funding and backing to help their careers blossom and also help them concentrate on their athletics full time.

So then, if Moses was a phenomenon on the track, he was pretty damn handy off it, as well.

To put the magnitude of Moses' times and consistency in to context, he remains the second fastest man ever over the 400m hurdles - a claim no other man on the track can still make more than three decades after his peak, I believe) and only one Olympic final since 1983 has been quicker than his best mark of 47.02 seconds.

There have been some great winning streaks in sport; Australia's sixteen victorious test matches on the spin in cricket (done twice, between 1999 and 2001 and then again from 2005 to 2008), Bjorn Borg and Roger Federer both managing five consecutive Wimbledon triumphs in the men's singles and Real Madrid being crowned as champions in the first five editions of the European Cup from 1956 to 1960. But I genuinely believe that Moses' streak from 1977 to 1987 belongs right up there with them.

My favourite Moses highlight is the 1987 World Championship 400m hurdles final from Rome. Past his magnificant best, facing off against the young generation of Danny Harris (the man who, only weeks before, had ended his incredible run) and Harold Schmidt and coming under severe pressure in the final 50m, Moses kept his head, his form and his cool to set a new championship record in one of the best track races you'll ever see. That was Moses past his best - so just how incredible does that make a Moses at his peak? Incredible enough to be virtually untouchable for a decade, that's how incredible!

There have been some great names from track and field already mentioned so far in this 'tournament'.....Could Edwin Moses be perhaps the greatest of them all?

Well Id argue that most golfers just play for fun and arent taking part in official competitions, after all the vast majority of people who play dont have hadicaps. If you run or jog and set yourself a goal or a time to beat its much the same as trying to beat your best score.
But its a grey area I guess.

I see the point here. There are a lot of people playing golf for leisure. And you would find the same with cycling and jogging for example.

But competitively there must be many, many more playing football, just look at the size of the football pyramid in this country and then there are regional and local leagues below that.

I thnk its fair to say that both arnt fringe sports , however my 500m was incorrect!!

Both have deserved noms in this GOAT comp.

VTR i think almost every top participation list has footy as no.1!!

No worries. This place is for debate, right?I like golf, but calling it a massively particpated sport is a little misleading. Not to say it is a lie, but if I want to take my mate on in a 100m race once a month, I just need to find a stretch of road. If I wanted to do face him once a month over 9 holes, it is best I become a registered member of a club, no?
The same lax requirement applies to many sports.

mystiroakey wrote:I thnk its fair to say that both arnt fringe sports , however my 500m was incorrect!!

Both have deserved noms in this GOAT comp.

VTR i think almost every top participation list has footy as no.1!!

Id certainly have them in compared to the christ how many boxers where listed for a low participation sport.

Long as Bradman ends as the winner, all is well with the competition

Kinggraf

Thats fine however please understand that golf isnt and should never be called a fringe sport.


"If I wanted to do face him once a month over 9 holes, it is best I become a registered member of a club, no? "

Certainly not!

go down your local 9 hole course would be best..

kingraf wrote:Long as Bradman ends as the winner, all is well with the competition

Id have maybe had Bradman before we started, now Ive seen how many tests he was playing just against England and take into account the war, he wont be getting my vote, amazing as his stats were.

kingraf wrote:Long as Bradman ends as the winner, all is well with the competition

Think Federer will be up there. The Tennis board is very active on here and most of them have a massive man-crush on him!

mystiroakey wrote:
Kinggraf

Thats fine however please understand that golf isnt and should never be called a fringe sport.


"If I wanted to do face him once a month over 9 holes, it is best I become a registered member of a club, no? "

Certainly not!

go down your local 9 hole course would be best..

Its not a fringe sport...its a popular pastime or hobby as it fails the sports tests on several counts.

Has SR knicked your account diggs. I was wondering where he went

I understand why people wouldnt vote him due to his lack of variable opposotion. But he is just so far away from all opposition that it renders that a minor issue. Indeed, considering how many Tests it took Sub-continent teams to acclimatise, Braman would probably have had a higher average.

Mystiroakey- It was a lack of articulation on my part, I dont consider golf fringe... I play twice a month at my local door.

So it looks like a Bradman v Fed finale then¿

I understand why people wouldnt vote him due to his lack of variable opposotion. But he is just so far away from all opposition that it renders that a minor issue. Indeed, considering how many Tests it took Sub-continent teams to acclimatise, Braman would probably have had a higher average.

Mystiroakey- It was a lack of articulation on my part, I dont consider golf fringe... I play twice a month at my local door.

So it looks like a Bradman v Fed finale then¿

Oddly enough cricket is 'supposedly' the second most partcipated sport.

However its numbers dont really help its cause considering 90% of them are indian and hardly any off them get to play agianst the other competiting nations- because test cricket is an international only game!

Bradman and Fed are 2 of my top picks . I would be happy with that however . I wouldnt mind tiger of Jack getting the mix!

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I thnk its fair to say that both arnt fringe sports , however my 500m was incorrect!!

Both have deserved noms in this GOAT comp.

VTR i think almost every top participation list has footy as no.1!!

Id certainly have them in compared to the christ how many boxers where listed for a low participation sport.

As was pointed out previously, when Greb, Armstrong and Robinson were competing, boxing was not a low participation sport. If not the highest particpation sport in America during the first half of the 20th century, it was second only to baseball. Those three (along with the omitted, Ezzard Charles) represent the best the sport had to offer pre 1950. Ali has to be included as he is one of favourites for the overall title. I agree that Leonard and Tyson (in particular) were a step too far.

I have a horrible feeling the Don is going to come a cropper against someone like Bjorn Borg in the next round. The final could be Borg vs Federer, a virtual tennis match if you like.

Id go for Phelps ahead of Bradman. Id say his record set in a modern day context is also way ahead of his peers.

One name I havent seen (I may have missed it) is Ryan Sandes. The first man to win the 4Desert ultra series. Comsidering how many people jog and run marathons surely he deserves a wildcard (if he hasnt already been eliminated). Id gladly champion his case. He wont win, but he really is a running legend.

superflyweight wrote:

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:I thnk its fair to say that both arnt fringe sports , however my 500m was incorrect!!

Both have deserved noms in this GOAT comp.

VTR i think almost every top participation list has footy as no.1!!

Id certainly have them in compared to the christ how many boxers where listed for a low participation sport.

As was pointed out previously, when Greb, Armstrong and Robinson were competing, boxing was not a low participation sport. If not the highest particpation sport in America during the first half of the 20th century, it was second only to baseball. Those three (along with the omitted, Ezzard Charles) represent the best the sport had to offer pre 1950. Ali has to be included as he is one of favourites for the overall title. I agree that Leonard and Tyson (in particular) were a step too far.

I think you have to look at the participation levels across history, boxing may have been popular as a participation sport once but it hasnt been for a long time. So we are looking at an era back in the day when a lot of people werent training full time and the mob had a great big hand in who fought who and who may have won various fights.

hmm the Borg-Federer idea raises a few questions

If the final were to be between, say Warne and Bradman, do we pick the winnet on how far ahead of their peers they are, or how likely Warne is to dissmiss Donald? Same with Federer- Borg. Is the winner based on the more likely winner in a duel or the more dominant player?

Diggers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Long as Bradman ends as the winner, all is well with the competition

Id have maybe had Bradman before we started, now Ive seen how many tests he was playing just against England and take into account the war, he wont be getting my vote, amazing as his stats were.

The war hindered him, if anything.

If it was warne v bradman bowling and batting against each other only- Warne would win.

Bradman cant bowl but warne can bat abit..

eventually warne would bowl him out!!

thats why i wanted to champion Kallis in this(i think he trumps sobers)

mystiroakey wrote:If it was warne v bradman bowling and batting against each other only- Warne would win.

Bradman cant bowl but warne can bat abit..

eventually warne would bowl him out!!

thats why i wanted to champion Kallis in this(i think he trumps sobers)

You could say the same for most cricketers who could bat a bit and bowl well.

Bradman was vulnerable to legspin I believe

VTR wrote:Bradman was vulnerable to legspin I believe

Played O'Reilly pretty well, when they did meet.

Stella wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:If it was warne v bradman bowling and batting against each other only- Warne would win.

Bradman cant bowl but warne can bat abit..

eventually warne would bowl him out!!

thats why i wanted to champion Kallis in this(i think he trumps sobers)

You could say the same for most cricketers who could bat a bit and bowl well.

yeah it was based on Kinggrafs comment about how would we judge borg v fed in a final showdown

Stella wrote:

Diggers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Long as Bradman ends as the winner, all is well with the competition

Id have maybe had Bradman before we started, now Ive seen how many tests he was playing just against England and take into account the war, he wont be getting my vote, amazing as his stats were.

The war hindered him, if anything.

It hindered his stats but also served to create a weak era...for obvious reasons.

mystiroakey wrote:

Stella wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:If it was warne v bradman bowling and batting against each other only- Warne would win.

Bradman cant bowl but warne can bat abit..

eventually warne would bowl him out!!

thats why i wanted to champion Kallis in this(i think he trumps sobers)

You could say the same for most cricketers who could bat a bit and bowl well.

yeah it was based on Kinggrafs comment about how would we judge borg v fed in a final showdown

Oki-doke.

Borg...............on clay

Diggers wrote:

Stella wrote:

Diggers wrote:

kingraf wrote:Long as Bradman ends as the winner, all is well with the competition

Id have maybe had Bradman before we started, now Ive seen how many tests he was playing just against England and take into account the war, he wont be getting my vote, amazing as his stats were.

The war hindered him, if anything.

It hindered his stats but also served to create a weak era...for obvious reasons.

After the war, for three years only.

Stella wrote:

VTR wrote:Bradman was vulnerable to legspin I believe

Played O'Reilly pretty well, when they did meet.

I think I was too subtle for my own good there. It was a reference to the Hollies dismissal.

I'm sure generally Bradman was up there with the best ever against legspin!

VTR wrote:

Stella wrote:

VTR wrote:Bradman was vulnerable to legspin I believe

Played O'Reilly pretty well, when they did meet.

I think I was too subtle for my own good there. It was a reference to the Hollies dismissal.

I'm sure generally Bradman was up there with the best ever against legspin!

Aah, didn't know he was a leggie. I'm basing that dismissal on the over long applause

Fed on grass!!!

Cricket fans>>?

Would samprass at peak beat Fed at peak on grass??

Stil over a quarter of his career, 15 out of 52 tests were post war.

mystiroakey wrote:Fed on grass!!!

Cricket fans>>?

Would samprass at peak beat Fed at peak on grass??

Reminds me of the Only Fools & Horses episode when Rodney said he'd never smoked astro turf.

mystiroakey wrote:
Would samprass at peak beat Fed at peak on grass??

Good question. In 2001 though a baby Roger beat a near peak Sampras at Wimbledon. Then went on to lose to a peak Tiger Tim.

Not sure what this proves actually, that a peak Tiger Tim is better than a peak Sampras perhaps

Diggers wrote:Stil over a quarter of his career, 15 out of 52 tests were post war.

Ok, but it wasn't as if he fed on scraps after the war and not before.

TIGER TIM FOR GOAT!!!

Whilst we're getting dragged sideways into semantics Diego is running away with it, he's hand balled again while we were distracted!!

I'd agree though, golf is hardly a fringe sport. It's global spread is greater than most I.e it doesn't have the American border limitations of say baseball, basketball or American Football or the old Empire limitations of say cricket.

Participation levels compared is a difficult thing to work out, everybody gets to try track and field at school sports, golf not so. Many people run for pleasure and fitness rather than competitively, many people play golf for pleasure rather than competitively too. Regardless of any of that though it can't really be said that golf is a fringe sport.

Stella wrote:

Diggers wrote:Stil over a quarter of his career, 15 out of 52 tests were post war.

Ok, but it wasn't as if he fed on scraps after the war and not before.

Nope, thats very true. I think the thing that amazed me was the number of Ashes games, I guess I naively believed that more test series were played then between the top nations as they are today.
But then again if the best players at the time were either Oz or English does it really matter ?

mystiroakey wrote:TIGER TIM FOR GOAT!!!

Maybe there should be a second wildcard round to give him a chance. Say:

Tiger Tim

Jimmy White

Colin Montgomerie

Oops on last post, never hit return before I went into a meeting, now I'm out the convo has changed completely...Doh!!

Id say Lee Westwood now probably trumps Monty on the golfing near miss front. Not that he has finished yet of course, then again Monty probably thinks he could still win one.

Diggers wrote:Id say Lee Westwood now probably trumps Monty on the golfing near miss front. Not that he has finished yet of course, then again Monty probably thinks he could still win one.

Fair point. Once this is over we should run the G.G.L.O.A.T. (Greatest Gallant Loser of all Time) poll. Naturally they would all be Brits, imagine the epic matchups: Derek Redmond vs Tiger Tim, Paula Radcliffe vs Lee Westwood.

I suppose in the end there would have to be no winner though!

Donald, Westwood, Garcia. They all need to win one. Can't see Sergio doing it now.

Monty honestly thought he should have another Ryder cup!!

Funny lad..

Jimmy is the greatest loser.

Untill Lee hangs up his boots I will not admit he is a Loser!!


Come on LW1

Does Westwood still post on here? It was either here or the old 606.

Actually scrub Jimmy.

POULTER would beat all brit losers!!

Bceause he isnt really one even though his major record isnt the best.

POULTS FOR the Win

Nah he doesnt Stella. He didnt come over here

VTR wrote:

Diggers wrote:Id say Lee Westwood now probably trumps Monty on the golfing near miss front. Not that he has finished yet of course, then again Monty probably thinks he could still win one.

Fair point. Once this is over we should run the G.G.L.O.A.T. (Greatest Gallant Loser of all Time) poll. Naturally they would all be Brits, imagine the epic matchups: Derek Redmond vs Tiger Tim, Paula Radcliffe vs Lee Westwood.

I suppose in the end there would have to be no winner though!

Oooh, harsh on Paula. She did win a world 10000 and still holds the marathon world record. If I thought of her as a loser Id have to think of Colin Jackson and Steve Cram in the same way and I dont think I can do that.

mystiroakey wrote:Nah he doesnt Stella. He didnt come over here

Shame.