v2 G.O.A.T The Semi Finals Match 1

First topic message reminder :

The last 8 participants competed on Monday for the final four spots in the v2 GOAT, the first group was dominated by two men; Mohammed Ali and Roger Federer who totalled a combined 84% of the overall vote. It was Ali that takes the advantage into the next round after winning the group by just 1 vote. The second of Mondays match ups was a three horse race between Woods, Bradman and Pele, at COP Pele had the advantage and closed the day as group winner with 25 votes to runner up Bradman’s 21, a valiant effort from Woods who exits the tournament with 16 votes.

The first of today’s semi-finals kicks off with group 1 winner Mohammed Ali taking on Group 2 runner up Don Bradman

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

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

I don't care Oakey, it's an irrelevant era. No one harps on about footballers, tennis players, rugby players, golfers etc from that era because the standard was so atrocious, don't see why cricket would have been any different or why Bradman should be immune from criticism because of some exaggerated stats when you and I probably could have got a game.

I think due to the era. The Don loses out as the top GOATie. But at the same time I cant see how Pele and Ali are any better

My goats are all pretty much from the modern era. I have expalined my reasons many times. I have a theory and I stick by it.

Bradman for me as the most awesome performer. I have voted for Ali in several rounds, but he is not clearly the best boxer ever.

Hes the greatest Heavyweight ever which probably translates as the greatest boxer ever to non fans.

Right, boxing fans, I need to ask some things about Ali!

Why is Ali a better option than SRR as GOAT and if they were to have come up against each other who would get your vote in this competition? Ali for his overall impact and being number 1 heavy or SRR for being the boxing GOAT? In addition whilst it has been glossed over that Ali went downhill rapidly at the end of his career (I don't hold this against him) but also he did struggle a lot with Frazier and is widely believed to have lost his series with Norton, does this harm his legacy? Whilst he is the best Heavy of all time he did have his weaknesses against certain styles, whilst Bradman was imperious against all bowling. Even against bodyline he averaged a huge amount.

How much footage actually exists from Bradman? Have all of you flying his flag ever really watched him or are you just going on some ancient bloody stats from a weak ancient era and buying into the romanticised image and legend.

SR mate your arguments would carry alot more weight if you could actually back and give reasons why others are more worthy of being Mr Goatie!

The whole of the Cricket world recognizes The Don. Some very clever dudes amongst them and all pal..

Parkinsons sure did send Alis career downward fairly quickly but you have to remember 35 was seen as ancient in the 70's while he had to compete in the toughest era of all which Bradman did not.

I've provided plenty reasons as to why anyone from Bradmans era in any sport shouldn't be criticised.

I don't deny he might be the best cricketer ever if you go on stats, but it's ridiculous when they are 75 years old. We don't pay heed to other stats from those days in anything, so why is cricket given a free ride. He's a mythical romantic image. But he's not a GOAT outside of cricket by any means.

The heavyweights are always hampered by the fact smaller boxers get weight class protection. So much emphasis is put on "pound for pound" considering its such a vague and rather immeasurable concept. In reality Ali would beat any boxer that gets placed above him on the usual greatest boxers list but because he is bigger than them its dismissed as being largely irrelevant.

Ali may not clearly be the best boxer, but he would clearly beat the one who generally is ranked the best.

super_realist wrote:How much footage actually exists from Bradman? Have all of you flying his flag ever really watched him or are you just going on some ancient bloody stats from a weak ancient era and buying into the romanticised image and legend.

Wish someone would give you a different drum to bang your homunculus head against. Couldn't care less about Bradman but Christ, you make me want to become his biggest fan in protest at your endless dismissal of him. You've said in the past that you don't see the point in watching sport and that you prefer to participate. At times like this I wish that you also didn't see the point in posting repetitive drivel passed off as fact.

It's a bloody forum in which Oakey and I are having a good debate, the whole point of this exercise, if you don't like it, feel free to flounce off.

manos de piedra wrote:The heavyweights are always hampered by the fact smaller boxers get weight class protection. So much emphasis is put on "pound for pound" considering its such a vague and rather immeasurable concept. In reality Ali would beat any boxer that gets placed above him on the usual greatest boxers list but because he is bigger than them its dismissed as being largely irrelevant.

Ali may not clearly be the best boxer, but he would clearly beat the one who generally is ranked the best.

Well i agree with the fact that the GOAT of boxing should be the boxer that would beat any other boxer(therefore you probally are going to have to be a heavyweight!). So if this truely is the case with Ali. Great.

However didnt he lose quite a few fights?. Did he fight all of the best around him?

Ali knocks out Srr in 2 rounds if that should they ever fight.
SRR within the sport is considered the greatest but its entirely subjective. Its like saying Brian Lara has a better armoury of shots than Sachin - you can vaguely understand it but you cant prove it or give it as a valid reason outside of the sport. I'd have Ali on a GOAT of all sports (not a goat of boxing), but many others would have SRR or Armstrong who is also a fantastic fighter. I think his struggles with Frazier and Norton were a result of him losing his prime to the us government and when he came back he was noticeably slower. Both of these fighters were awkward for his style but everything was exacerbated by his lack of speed. Then he adjusted and beat Frazier Foreman Norton again Comprehensively though he still struggled with Norton.

I don't count them against him much because he found ways to win and absorbed tremendous punishment - where his physical gifts deserted him his will filled the gap. Particularly the game against Foreman. His Idea of how to handle the West indies battery of fast bowlers was to stand in front and take the beating until they wear them selves out. Peppering them to the boundary every so often, questioning their ability and generally getting them into an insane rage until they wore themselves out. By the end of his career he was a shadow of himself, suffering from the onset of parkinsons but despite that still managed to win the title back before retiring. Ali bumaye.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:Out of genuine curiosity can any of the hardcore cricket fans comment on the relative competitiveness of cricket in Bradmans day compared to the last 20/30 years?

I dont think anyone would dispute the stats, merely that they might not reflect the whole truth or accurately represent the real question.

As I said on another thread, statistacally Rocky Marciano is a better heavyweight than Ali and dominated his era more thoroughly (never lost a fight). However Ali operated in a far stronger field of heavyweights an amassed a much more impressive list of wins.

Bradman has stats going for him, but is there not more to it than that?

I think it's fair to say that the 1930s, when Bradman played most of his cricket, was one of the friendliest periods for batsmen in terms of both quality of bowling (or lack thereof) and quality of wickets (although they still had to deal with the occasional 'sticky').
However, there are just a couple of points.
1)No-one else who batted in the 1930s managed to get anywhere near Bradman's average, despite a number of them being reckoned among the best batsmen of all-time.
2)There have been other 'batsmen friendly' eras in cricket (from around 2003-present day would be a good example) and still no-one has challenged Bradman's average

The fact remains that, in virtually every period of cricket history, the great batsmen have averaged between 50-60. All except Bradman.

Yes but what was the global competition like? Was it as competitive a field as nowadays? Was the sport as widely played? Was the level of competition as tough? No heavyweight champion has managed to retire undefeated bar Marciano but it doesnt qualify Marciano as the automatic best ever. Superior stats in a weaker era can be trumped by lesser stats in a more competitive one in my opinion. I dont really know enough about cricket to have a say on Bradman but I just get the impression that there is so much emphasis placed on his stats when stats can be misleading or not tell the full story.

while you're right in that stats don't tell the whole story (Marciano being a prime example), they do tell us some of the story, and Bradman's stats are really miles ahead of the next best, which is why he's viewed unanimously as the greatest. I'm going to probably say something stupid, but Marciano was unbeaten through slightly more than 40 fights right? now imagine had he been unbeaten through 80 or more? his stock would rise, right?

It would rise for sure but it would still viewed within the context of his competition and who he was beating. There have been boxers that have got to 40 fights without losing by beating stiffs and their stats would indicate a 100% win record.

As I said above, I dont actually know enough about crickets hsitory overall to make any kind of accurate judgement. But if it was the case that Bradmans era was significantly weaker and more insular than the more global and professional game played today I would see it as a counterbalance to Bradmans statistical dominance.

Yes he fought all of the best;

Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Paterson, Chuvalo, Shavers, Williams, Terrell, Folley, Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis, Mathis, Foster, Moore, Lyle and Young represents a ridiculously high level of opposition. At somewhere near his best he has two losses (Frazier and Norton) but all things considered against the opponents he faced he should have lost more than he did.

Supers

BTW Super i cant really fault your argument tbh.

Bradman is clearly very loved in this country and in Aus.. (loved in England and wales for tearing us apart of course)

But there are very clear arguments for him and also very clear arguments against him and perhaps even the sport of cricket.

My concern with Ali is that I have no idea how good this guy was - even in his own era(bradman at least was the best in his).Ali seems to be in an Impenetrable bubble due to his out of the ring antics. So much propaganda surronds him , and boxing baffles me tbh- I just dont trust it!

mystiroakey wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:The heavyweights are always hampered by the fact smaller boxers get weight class protection. So much emphasis is put on "pound for pound" considering its such a vague and rather immeasurable concept. In reality Ali would beat any boxer that gets placed above him on the usual greatest boxers list but because he is bigger than them its dismissed as being largely irrelevant.

Ali may not clearly be the best boxer, but he would clearly beat the one who generally is ranked the best.

Well i agree with the fact that the GOAT of boxing should be the boxer that would beat any other boxer(therefore you probally are going to have to be a heavyweight!). So if this truely is the case with Ali. Great.

However didnt he lose quite a few fights?. Did he fight all of the best around him?

Not that many really. Only two losses any real significance I would say (he lost some when he washed up on top). But the two fights of significance he lost were avanged and he basically beat every top heavyweight in the best ever era of heavyweights.

JDizzle wrote:Right, boxing fans, I need to ask some things about Ali!

Why is Ali a better option than SRR as GOAT and if they were to have come up against each other who would get your vote in this competition? Ali for his overall impact and being number 1 heavy or SRR for being the boxing GOAT? In addition whilst it has been glossed over that Ali went downhill rapidly at the end of his career (I don't hold this against him) but also he did struggle a lot with Frazier and is widely believed to have lost his series with Norton, does this harm his legacy? Whilst he is the best Heavy of all time he did have his weaknesses against certain styles, whilst Bradman was imperious against all bowling. Even against bodyline he averaged a huge amount.

To answer a few of your questions, Ali would later suffer from Parkinson's so this could possibly have lead to his decline, not to mention the fact that he was 36 when he lost Spinks and 38 when losing to Holmes. I don't see that as glossing over anything, he was past his peak and carried on too long. He isn't the first nor will he be the last to do so.

He struggled with Frazier and Norton yes, but this is after he had a 3 and a 1/2 year exile from the sport. If you watch the Cleveland Williams fight then compare with any of his post exile fights, you can see that he had suffered physically from the time spent out of the ring. But even then, showing the true champion that he was, he found other ways to win.

Ali is at a disadvantage to SRR in that he couldn't move up in weights. SRR gets a great deal of credit for his performance against Joey Maxim before wilting under the heat up at light heavy, but Ali couldn't attempt to do the same. One thing I think Ali doesn't get enough credit for is winning an Olympic Gold Medal. Very few do so, and even less do so with 6 years experience. I rate SRR higher in a boxing sense, but if you also include the way he transcended the sport, then very few in any field can match him.

super_realist wrote:How much footage actually exists from Bradman? Have all of you flying his flag ever really watched him or are you just going on some ancient bloody stats from a weak ancient era and buying into the romanticised image and legend.

As an exercise I am guessing if I was to google the top ten generals in military history ever am fairly sure there would be people on the list who operated a good few years before Bradman last picked up a bat. Have always wondered why it is accepted people can research a subject based on historical records and research and draw a conclusion based on their learning but anyone who does likewise for sport has to endure this drivel.

[quote="mystiroakey"]Supers

BTW Super i cant really fault your argument tbh.

Bradman is clearly very loved in this country and in Aus.. (loved in England and wales for tearing us apart of course)

But there are very clear arguments for him and also very clear arguments against him and perhaps even the sport of cricket.

My concern with Ali is that I have no idea how good this guy was - even in his own era(bradman at least was the best in his).Ali seems to be in an Impenetrable bubble due to his out of the ring antics. So much propaganda surronds him , and boxing baffles me tbh- I just dont trust it![/quote]



It's like magic.

Neither should have made it this far. I voted for Ali cos I've never heard of Bradman

Rowley wrote:

super_realist wrote:How much footage actually exists from Bradman? Have all of you flying his flag ever really watched him or are you just going on some ancient bloody stats from a weak ancient era and buying into the romanticised image and legend.

As an exercise I am guessing if I was to google the top ten generals in military history ever am fairly sure there would be people on the list who operated a good few years before Bradman last picked up a bat. Have always wondered why it is accepted people can research a subject based on historical records and research and draw a conclusion based on their learning but anyone who does likewise for sport has to endure this drivel.

Come on everyone, lets have your top 64 Military Generals, because comparing war and sport over time is the same thing, after all facing down a German across no mans land is just like facing a Jim Laker Googly

super_realist wrote:

Rowley wrote:

super_realist wrote:How much footage actually exists from Bradman? Have all of you flying his flag ever really watched him or are you just going on some ancient bloody stats from a weak ancient era and buying into the romanticised image and legend.

As an exercise I am guessing if I was to google the top ten generals in military history ever am fairly sure there would be people on the list who operated a good few years before Bradman last picked up a bat. Have always wondered why it is accepted people can research a subject based on historical records and research and draw a conclusion based on their learning but anyone who does likewise for sport has to endure this drivel.

Come on everyone, lets have your top 64 Military Generals, because comparing war and sport over time is the same thing, after all facing down a German across no mans land is just like facing a Jim Laker Googly

Jim Laker didn't bowl googlies.

Not saying they are the same thing, not even close to being my point. the point I was making is why when anyone says they rate an old timer they have to listen to the usual "how can you rate someone you have never seen" argument. Is as eminently possible for those of a mind to do so to read and research the subject and draw conclusions from said research same as it is for literally any subject.

Well Rowley, as far as this debate has gone, no one has done anything except for quote stats, no one has mentioned his technique, flamboyance, skill, etc, and very few have had the grace to question the period in which he played in and the standard of the opposition he faced.

I could come out and say Dixie Dean is the GOAT English striker because of his goals/games ratio but due to the period, general fitness etc very few people would agree and I doubt he'd come in a top 5 of peoples choices if you asked them today.

People seem very willing to put Bradman on an pedestal which cannot be questioned based on statistics from a time or period of the sport that those championing him appear to know very little about or rather dare not to question. Sir Don, the unimpeachable, just asking for a bit of context rather than some rather ancient stats as being sole justification.

Anyway, he's on his way back to the pavillion for a cucumber triple decker and a sticky bun.

super_realist wrote:Well Rowley, as far as this debate has gone, no one has done anything except for quote stats, no one has mentioned his technique, flamboyance, skill, etc, and very few have had the grace to question the period in which he played in and the standard of the opposition he faced.

I could come out and say Dixie Dean is the GOAT English striker because of his goals/games ratio but due to the period, general fitness etc very few people would agree and I doubt he'd come in a top 5 of peoples choices if you asked them today.

People seem very willing to put Bradman on an pedestal which cannot be questioned based on statistics from a time or period of the sport that those championing him appear to know very little about or rather dare not to question. Sir Don, the unimpeachable, just asking for a bit of context rather than some rather ancient stats as being sole justification.

Anyway, he's on his way back to the pavillion for a cucumber triple decker and a sticky bun.

Difference is, Dean's record for goals in a season has been bettered by others from around the world, and has been challenged by other Englishmen.
Bradman's average hasn't.
In fact, no-ones ever come close.
As for Bradman's technique, he was reknowned for having great footwork, was a brilliant hooker and cutter, but could drive well.
He probably wasn't, technically, the best player even of his own era, if bowlers like Clarrie Grimmett are to be believed, but what set him apart was his ruthless pursuit of runs and his ability to place the ball, consistently, in gaps in the field. That meant that, while he hardly ever hit sixes in test cricket (hitting the ball in the air meant risking being caught), he could still score at a phenomenal rate, as exemplified by his 309 runs in a day at Headingly in 1930.
While it is true that he played in a good period for batsmen, that still doesn't explain why his average is so much higher either than other batsmen who played in the same era, or ther batsmen who have played in periods of weak bowling and good pitches. If conditions make such a difference why, as I have said, have all other great batsmen in the history of cricket averaged between 50 and 60, apart from Bradman, whose average is around 40% higher?

its a lot more than 40% higher mate..

Yeah OK, more like 60%

As much as I regard Bradman as the true craftsman of cricket, I however must give my vote to the man that won the Heavyweight Boxing championship of the World three times.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

Difference is, Dean's record for goals in a season has been bettered by others from around the world, and has been challenged by other Englishmen.
Bradman's average hasn't.
In fact, no-ones ever come close.

Exactly.

My great uncle had the thankless task of trying to lead Liverpool's attack around the time Billy ('Dixie' was a name conjured up by the press) Dean was banging in 60 goals for the season at Everton. Much as my great uncle admired Dean as a goal scorer, he had little time for him as a person and considered the Scottish born Hughie Gallacher (who played in England) to be an infinitely better player.

Although Gallacher is very largely forgotten today, his own goal scoring record record remains mightily impressive and still stands up. If you ever get the chance, I would recommend a read up on his life story - very interesting and ultimately tragic.

Largely off topic but of interest to me anyway! I think though it does show that some sporting records - in this case, Dean's - don't hold up as uniquely as we would expect. However, that is not so with Bradman. His averages in both Tests and first class cricket (good point made earlier by Mad for Chelsea that the Don also scored runs against the cream of Australia's own bowlers) towered over other batsmen at the time and continue to do so today.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

super_realist wrote:Well Rowley, as far as this debate has gone, no one has done anything except for quote stats, no one has mentioned his technique, flamboyance, skill, etc, and very few have had the grace to question the period in which he played in and the standard of the opposition he faced.

I could come out and say Dixie Dean is the GOAT English striker because of his goals/games ratio but due to the period, general fitness etc very few people would agree and I doubt he'd come in a top 5 of peoples choices if you asked them today.

People seem very willing to put Bradman on an pedestal which cannot be questioned based on statistics from a time or period of the sport that those championing him appear to know very little about or rather dare not to question. Sir Don, the unimpeachable, just asking for a bit of context rather than some rather ancient stats as being sole justification.

Anyway, he's on his way back to the pavillion for a cucumber triple decker and a sticky bun.

Difference is, Dean's record for goals in a season has been bettered by others from around the world, and has been challenged by other Englishmen.
Bradman's average hasn't.
In fact, no-ones ever come close.
As for Bradman's technique, he was reknowned for having great footwork, was a brilliant hooker and cutter, but could drive well.
He probably wasn't, technically, the best player even of his own era, if bowlers like Clarrie Grimmett are to be believed, but what set him apart was his ruthless pursuit of runs and his ability to place the ball, consistently, in gaps in the field. That meant that, while he hardly ever hit sixes in test cricket (hitting the ball in the air meant risking being caught), he could still score at a phenomenal rate, as exemplified by his 309 runs in a day at Headingly in 1930.
While it is true that he played in a good period for batsmen, that still doesn't explain why his average is so much higher either than other batsmen who played in the same era, or ther batsmen who have played in periods of weak bowling and good pitches. If conditions make such a difference why, as I have said, have all other great batsmen in the history of cricket averaged between 50 and 60, apart from Bradman, whose average is around 40% higher?

Well done, someone finally puts up a proper case for him. Too little too late though.

Oh whatever SR!

So now we've got battle of the smug in the Final.