Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: dave.woodhall on July 23, 2012, 02:03:28 PM
-
I've handed over to a guest columnist this week.
www.thebirminghampress.com/2012/07/23/now-thats-what-i-call-an-athlete/
-
What a ridiculous statement to say we've seen better than Usain Bolt, before.
-
What a ridiculous statement to say we've seen better than Usain Bolt, before.
Why is it?
-
Don Bradman. Almost twice as good as every other person to play his sport. For Bolt to be considered as good he would have to run a hundred yards in five seconds.
-
What a ridiculous statement to say we've seen better than Usain Bolt, before.
We have seen better.
-
Hmmmm not sure about ,"true blue Brummie". Inferring something you may read on KRO.
Interesting piece ,mind.
-
What a ridiculous statement to say we've seen better than Usain Bolt, before.
Why is it?
Because he is without equal to date.
-
He's the quickest, but not the best.
-
Good story. I liked this too.
http://www.thebirminghampress.com/2011/08/30/the-birmingham-council-myth-machine/
Just about sums up BCC. Exactly why Birmingham is such a hopeless backwater and mishmash of a city.
-
If Bolt breaks the world record by 17 seconds then than he can claim to be the equal of Albert.
-
Am I the only one who thinks it's utterly pointless to try and compare sportsmen from different eras? There are too many differences to make it worthwhile.
-
I think that in sports where the statistics are consistent you can compare players of different eras.
In cricket, for example, the averages of the best payers are remarkably consistent.
A good test match batsman from any era will average around the 40 mark. A great batsman will average over fifty.
A batsman who averages 99 (only one, Don Bradman), proving himself to be approximately twice as good as anybody who ever played, can without doubt be called the greatest.
Bradman, IMO, is not just the greatest batsman of all time, but the greatest sportsman.
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
The best 100 meter runner at the moment, yes.
The best sportsman ever? Up for debate.
-
Brian Little is the best sportsman ever. Case closed.
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
The best or the greatest. Presently the best 100m runner around. Still well behind Carl Lewis and Jessie Owens, before you even start to compare him with all the other sport disciplines.
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
The best or the greatest. Presently the best 100m runner around. Still well behind Carl Lewis and Jessie Owens, before you even start to compare him with all the other sport disciplines.
* greatest 100m runner EVER. Records dictate that.
Anyway, the linked article says that we have seen better runners than Bolt before . Not sportsman. Runner, and that's where it lost credibility in the first paragraph .
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
The best or the greatest. Presently the best 100m runner around. Still well behind Carl Lewis and Jessie Owens, before you even start to compare him with all the other sport disciplines.
* greatest 100m runner EVER. Records dictate that.
Anyway, the linked article says that we have seen better runners than Bolt before . Not sportsman. Runner, and that's where it lost credibility in the first paragraph .
When Usain Bolt has set as many world records over as many distances as the original runner referred to, then you might have a case.
-
Don Bradman. Almost twice as good as every other person to play his sport. For Bolt to be considered as good he would have to run a hundred yards in five seconds.
Don Bradman was inferior to Sir Garfield Sobers so not twice as good as him I would suggest.
-
Don Bradman. Almost twice as good as every other person to play his sport. For Bolt to be considered as good he would have to run a hundred yards in five seconds.
Don Bradman was inferior to Sir Garfield Sobers so not twice as good as him I would suggest.
Not as a batsman. There is of course the argument that Sobers was a better all-round cricketer, but then the same could be said about Jacques Kallis.
-
I think that in sports where the statistics are consistent you can compare players of different eras.
In cricket, for example, the averages of the best payers are remarkably consistent.
A good test match batsman from any era will average around the 40 mark. A great batsman will average over fifty.
A batsman who averages 99 (only one, Don Bradman), proving himself to be approximately twice as good as anybody who ever played, can without doubt be called the greatest.
Bradman, IMO, is not just the greatest batsman of all time, but the greatest sportsman.
I'd argue that he was the most consistent, certainly, but not the greatest ever. Sports records obviously get harder to beat as time marches on, and Bolt just can't be touched by anybody. Cricket is a different sport in that most top batsmen are capable of scoring centuries. Bradman was rmarkable in that he scored so many of them, but no other runner in the history of the world is capable of what Bolt has achieved. All about opinion I suppose.
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
The best or the greatest. Presently the best 100m runner around. Still well behind Carl Lewis and Jessie Owens, before you even start to compare him with all the other sport disciplines.
* greatest 100m runner EVER. Records dictate that.
Anyway, the linked article says that we have seen better runners than Bolt before . Not sportsman. Runner, and that's where it lost credibility in the first paragraph .
When Usain Bolt has set as many world records over as many distances as the original runner referred to, then you might have a case.
Dont talk absurd. At what he does, he is history's best to date - by a country mile.
You can't compare a Jeep to an F1 car, different horse for a different course.
Your article writing friend, dropped a bollock in writing that ridiculous phrase, obviosly.
-
At what he does is the key. Bolt is the best we've ever seen at 100m & 200m.
Shrubb was the best anyone had seen at the time from 1000 yards to 11 miles. That impresses me more than what Bolt does.
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
The best or the greatest. Presently the best 100m runner around. Still well behind Carl Lewis and Jessie Owens, before you even start to compare him with all the other sport disciplines.
* greatest 100m runner EVER. Records dictate that.
Anyway, the linked article says that we have seen better runners than Bolt before . Not sportsman. Runner, and that's where it lost credibility in the first paragraph .
When Usain Bolt has set as many world records over as many distances as the original runner referred to, then you might have a case.
Dont talk absurd. At what he does, he is history's best to date - by a country mile.
You can't compare a Jeep to an F1 car, different horse for a different course.
Your article writing friend, dropped a bollock in writing that ridiculous phrase, obviosly.
According to a minority of one. You.
-
I think that in sports where the statistics are consistent you can compare players of different eras.
In cricket, for example, the averages of the best payers are remarkably consistent.
A good test match batsman from any era will average around the 40 mark. A great batsman will average over fifty.
A batsman who averages 99 (only one, Don Bradman), proving himself to be approximately twice as good as anybody who ever played, can without doubt be called the greatest.
Bradman, IMO, is not just the greatest batsman of all time, but the greatest sportsman.
I'd argue that he was the most consistent, certainly, but not the greatest ever. Sports records obviously get harder to beat as time marches on, and Bolt just can't be touched by anybody. Cricket is a different sport in that most top batsmen are capable of scoring centuries. Bradman was rmarkable in that he scored so many of them, but no other runner in the history of the world is capable of what Bolt has achieved. All about opinion I suppose.
I think it's pretty difficult to compare athletes from such different eras objectively. Improvements in training methods, nutrition, running shoes and the standard of tracks that they compete on mean that you'll never have a like for like comparison.
-
Didn't know where to post this but well done on the H&V facelift. It looks fab.
-
Come on then ......now deny Bolt isn't the best.
The best or the greatest. Presently the best 100m runner around. Still well behind Carl Lewis and Jessie Owens, before you even start to compare him with all the other sport disciplines.
* greatest 100m runner EVER. Records dictate that.
Anyway, the linked article says that we have seen better runners than Bolt before . Not sportsman. Runner, and that's where it lost credibility in the first paragraph .
When Usain Bolt has set as many world records over as many distances as the original runner referred to, then you might have a case.
Dont talk absurd. At what he does, he is history's best to date - by a country mile.
You can't compare a Jeep to an F1 car, different horse for a different course.
Your article writing friend, dropped a bollock in writing that ridiculous phrase, obviosly.
According to a minority of one. You.
Dave, don't be such a patronising tit.
Read all todays websites and their home pages to see the world is thinking the same.
-
Dave, don't be such a patronising tit.
Read all todays websites and their home pages to see the world is thinking the same.
Do you insult everyone who disagrees with you, or is it a special treat you reserve for us? Either way, it's not very impressive.
-
Dave, don't be such a patronising tit.
Read all todays websites and their home pages to see the world is thinking the same.
Do you insult everyone who disagrees with you, or is it a special treat you reserve for us? Either way, it's not very impressive.
So saying "I'm in a minority of one" wasn't your insult first , Dave ? Likewise not impressed either.
-
Dave, don't be such a patronising tit.
Read all todays websites and their home pages to see the world is thinking the same.
Do you insult everyone who disagrees with you, or is it a special treat you reserve for us? Either way, it's not very impressive.
So saying "I'm in a minority of one" wasn't your insult first , Dave ? Likewise not impressed either.
Of course it isn't an insult; it's stating a fact. Nobody on this thread has agreed with you, therefore you're in a minority of one. The only insulting words on this topic have come from you. If you're not impressed, nobody's forcing you to stay.
-
Dave, don't be such a patronising tit.
Read all todays websites and their home pages to see the world is thinking the same.
Do you insult everyone who disagrees with you, or is it a special treat you reserve for us? Either way, it's not very impressive.
So saying "I'm in a minority of one" wasn't your insult first , Dave ? Likewise not impressed either.
Of course it isn't an insult; it's stating a fact. Nobody on this thread has agreed with you, therefore you're in a minority of one. The only insulting words on this topic have come from you. If you're not impressed, nobody's forcing you to stay.
You have ONE agreeing with you too, on this thread. The other closest one, saying "it's an interesting read"and the rest stating you cant compare one sport against the other.
So you telling me that you're not impressed that I have argued against you and vice versa , has now turned into a get out off our website remark ? Thought you had more about you, than that.
-
You were wrong about that as well.
-
I've gathered now (about the last bit).
-
(http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/The_Sun_newspaper_front_page.jpg)
(http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/The_Independent_newspaper_front_page.jpg)
(http://www.frontpagestoday.co.uk/frontpages/The_Daily_Telegraph_newspaper_front_page.jpg)
So you still think you know of better ?
-
At sprinting? No.
Across a whole range of distances? Yes.
Could Usain Bolt win the 5000 metres?
But you'll never get it.
-
One way to de-rail your own argument is using the Sun as evidence.
-
At sprinting? No.
Across a whole range of distances? Yes.
Could Usain Bolt win the 5000 metres?
But you'll never get it.
I get it .......... but I wasn't the one who stated that Usain Bolt be bought into the argument.
You cant bring yesterdays men's records into this and call them "Greats" in comparison to today .
Allan Well's Gold medal win of 1980 's , race time would not even get him into todays heats, let alone a final.
-
Not as good as Jesse Owens
-
At sprinting? No.
Across a whole range of distances? Yes.
Could Usain Bolt win the 5000 metres?
But you'll never get it.
I get it .......... but I wasn't the one who stated that Usain Bolt be bought into the argument.
You cant bring yesterdays men's records into this and call them "Greats" in comparison to today .
Allan Well's Gold medal win of 1980 's , race time would not even get him into todays heats, let alone a final.
You quite clearly don't get it. In fact, I wonder why you keep re-starting this debate. In a couple of years time someone will run faster than Usain Bolt and according to you, that won't make him great anymore.
-
You quite clearly don't get it. In fact, I wonder why you keep re-starting this debate. In a couple of years time someone will run faster than Usain Bolt and according to you, that won't make him great anymore.
I think the only person who will run faster than Usain Bolt in two years will be Usain Bolt. The man's unbelievable. It'll take somebody extraordinary to better his acheivements, and I don't believe that there's anybody out there capable at the moment.
-
But we think that all the time. Even now two or three sprinters are creeping closer to Bolt's WR, if Bolt can carry on going he may hold the record for five or six years, but it will go.
The one athletics WR that seems to be out of reach to everyone at the moment is Jonathan Edwards' 18.29m in the triple jump, there's hardly a jump over 18m these days. Can we call Edwards as better than Bolt, he's held the WR for 17 years now.
-
You quite clearly don't get it. In fact, I wonder why you keep re-starting this debate. In a couple of years time someone will run faster than Usain Bolt and according to you, that won't make him great anymore.
I think the only person who will run faster than Usain Bolt in two years will be Usain Bolt. The man's unbelievable. It'll take somebody extraordinary to better his acheivements, and I don't believe that there's anybody out there capable at the moment.
Unless we're going down the Gregnash road of a few = two and no more, ever, then it'll indeed be a few years rather than a strict two. But you don't know; Tiger Woods was going to win the highest number of Majors by a distance, Mike Tyson would be unbeaten forever and Bob Beamon's 1968 long jump record would last until the end of the century.
-
The greatest sportsperson of all time is Jim Thorpe............
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Jim_Thorpe_olympic.png)
-
Yes Usain Bolt is unbelievable. As is the way that Jamica is currently churning out men and women who are winning every medal in the sprints and running quicker and quicker. Totally unbelievable. Or is that disbelievable?
-
But we think that all the time. Even now two or three sprinters are creeping closer to Bolt's WR, if Bolt can carry on going he may hold the record for five or six years, but it will go.
The one athletics WR that seems to be out of reach to everyone at the moment is Jonathan Edwards' 18.29m in the triple jump, there's hardly a jump over 18m these days. Can we call Edwards as better than Bolt, he's held the WR for 17 years now.
Who's creeping closer though? Yohan Blake's best time is nearly 0.2 of a second slower than Bolt's WR, and Tyson Gay managed 9.69 3 years ago, and he's now 30. Usain Bolt is just an incredible one off, and the thing about the 100m is it's all about pure physical exertion. There's no team mates to rely on, and little in the way of equipment or other things that can have an effect. I honestly believe that no other runner will get close to him when he's fully fit, and that he'll break his own record sooner or later. There are lots of superb 100m sprinters like Blake, Gay and Gatlin, but Bolt just outclasses them all easily.
-
5 years ago no one would have expected someone to come along and beat Powell's WR so comprehensively. And so one. Every 5 years or so someone new comes along who is faster. I still remember when Carl Lewis ran under 9.90 and thinking no one would ever beat it.
-
5 years ago no one would have expected someone to come along and beat Powell's WR so comprehensively. And so one. Every 5 years or so someone new comes along who is faster. I still remember when Carl Lewis ran under 9.90 and thinking no one would ever beat it.
I confidently predict that in five years, Usain Bolt will still be 100m record holder. I think the same will be true in ten years time, unless they come up with some truly magical untraceable drugs.
-
Would you have predicted 5 years ago that someone would run as fast as Bolt does? I'm guessing the answer would be the same for all of us, no. So who is to say that in 5 years time we won't be saying exactly the same about a new Mr F Astfecker?
I wouldn't be shocked if the record does stand for a while, but neither would I be shocked if someone new comes along. History shows us that there is pretty much always someone faster/stronger just around the corner.
-
I confidently predict that no-one will get near Bradman's record in all eternity (average: 99.94 in tests), despite better pitches, fitness, training, equipment, nutrition and anything else you care to mention. Greatest sportsman ever, no doubt whatsoever in my mind.
Sobers? Great player, but that was a joke right? What's his batting average?
EDIT: just looked it up, 57 point something. Meh.
-
Long Jump is another that doesn't get broken very often. It took 25 years for Jesse Owen's record to go, 23 years for Bob Beaman's Mexico City jump to be bettered by Mike Powell and that's now stood for 21 years.
-
I confidently predict that no-one will get near Bradman's record in all eternity (average: 99.94 in tests), despite better pitches, fitness, training, equipment, nutrition and anything else you care to mention. Greatest sportsman ever, no doubt whatsoever in my mind.
Seconded. Bradman is, as near as dammit, twice as good as any batsman in the history of Test cricket. No-one else - including Pollock, Ponting, Lara, Tendulkar, Border - has even got close. I'm not aware of any other sportsman that can claim a comparably superior record.
-
If someone came along and carded a round of 36 in a major golf tournament, or ran the hundred metres in six seconds, or scored 20 goals in a World Cup finals tournament as well as 100 goals a season for his club, Bradman would have a rival
-
I'm a cricket lover and I was in Australia when Bradman snuffed it ( think Lady Di and multiply the public outpouring of grief by 100) and I understand how fantastic his record is ( would have been a complete 100 if we hadn't scuppered his final innings) .
But not everyone in the world has played cricket so who knows whether a kid in, say, China is a natural cricketing genius who will never realise his potential?
Everyone has sprinted over short distances at some point, so Bolt has a decent claim to be the best sportsman we've ever seen because he's outclassed allcomers in a sport that everyone has tried.
I reckon
-
I get your point Chico, but it rules out a lot of sports. Who can say there wasn't a better boxer than Ali who had never tried boxing?
I stand by my theory that if he'd done it twice as fast as everyone else then it would be comparable to Bradman. You may say that it's not humanly possible, but neither is the Don's average - for all but one human.
-
I confidently predict that no-one will get near Bradman's record in all eternity (average: 99.94 in tests), despite better pitches, fitness, training, equipment, nutrition and anything else you care to mention.
Better opposition bowlers? And Chico makes a valid point, not many countries in the world play cricket, especially the traditional powerhouses, eg China, USA, Russia etc. Who were the test playing nations back then, other than England and Australia?
edit: just checked, he averaged 178 against India, who didn't win a match for something like 30 years after they started playing Test matches.
-
There was also New Zealand and the west Indies weren't there?
-
I confidently predict that no-one will get near Bradman's record in all eternity (average: 99.94 in tests), despite better pitches, fitness, training, equipment, nutrition and anything else you care to mention.
Better opposition bowlers?
I'd say Bradman met more than his match with Harold Larwood.
-
The point though is that no other batsman got anywhere near Bradman's average including those who faced the same bowling. The mark of a truly fine Test player has always been around the 50 mark, no matter what the era or the opposition so Bradman has always been out on his own, miles ahead of the rest.
-
Exactly. If Risso's points were valid there would be a host of players from the same era with similar averages.
-
Wasn't that the time when they didn't cover pitches and tests could sometimes last about three hours?
-
Can we call Edwards as better than Bolt, he's held the WR for 17 years now.
Shit me, was that 17 years ago.
Did you know that Edwards no longer believes in god. Pretty much as soon as he gave up athletics he realised the folly in his beliefs, hence why he quit Songs of Praise. The theory does that religion was just away of him feeling less important “in the bigger scheme of things” and that fate/god would take care of everything, ultimately reducing the pressure he felt.
I read this in a book called Bounce. Very good if you want to know why some sportsmen excel.
-
It is nigh on impossible to compare sportsmen across eras, especially when their greatest achievements were 70 odd years apart. In 1936 sprinters went to the track armed with a trowel to dig a starting hole, they did not have blocks. They ran on a cinder track. If Owens had an army of coaches, none of them would have been able to review his technique on a laptop. etc. etc.
Had Bolt been born in 1912 he would have been nowhere near as fast as his own current world record either.
I must have missed Bolt's long jump gold, so I can't comment on that.
All you can do is judge achievement in the context of its time, and apply some nebulus D/L method to get a view as to who is or was the greatest. Subjective to say the least.
I'd go with Owens.
-
In the words of Tony Morley,"Give me the boots he wears and the pitches he plays on and I'd have been quicker than Ashley Young."
-
I don't think it's difficult to judge someone as the best when he's twice as good as every other player in his or any other era.
I can see it's difficult when there are fine margins involved.
-
Exactly. If Risso's points were valid there would be a host of players from the same era with similar averages.
Nonsense. He was playing for the best team in the world, in an era when there were three or four other test playing countries. He was easily the best player in the best team, who went around battering countries like South Africa and India. Cricket isn't exactly a world sport these days, but it was hardly played by anybody at all back then.
-
Nonsense, or other players from that era would have been better than half as good as him.
-
Nonsense, or other players from that era would have been better than half as good as him.
It really isn't saying very much. Four test playing countries with 6 batsmen each at any one time. He was the best batsman at a time when hardly anybody played cricket. Big deal, in the list of greatest sportsmen ever, he wouldn't be in my top 50.
-
Exactly. If Risso's points were valid there would be a host of players from the same era with similar averages.
Nonsense. He was playing for the best team in the world, in an era when there were three or four other test playing countries. He was easily the best player in the best team, who went around battering countries like South Africa and India. Cricket isn't exactly a world sport these days, but it was hardly played by anybody at all back then.
Wally Hammond and Sir Len Hutton who were of similar eras and are judged as two of the all time greats averaged 58 and 56 respectively. No-one in Bradman's era or any other era for that matter got anywhere near him.
-
Nonsense, or other players from that era would have been better than half as good as him.
It really isn't saying very much. Four test playing countries with 6 batsmen each at any one time. He was the best batsman at a time when hardly anybody played cricket. Big deal, in the list of greatest sportsmen ever, he wouldn't be in my top 50.
I honestly think that saying Messi wouldn't be in your top fifty Barcelona players would be a less ridiculous remark.
In my list of greatest sportsmen ever, there isn't a list, just a definitive answer.
-
Nonsense, or other players from that era would have been better than half as good as him.
It really isn't saying very much. Four test playing countries with 6 batsmen each at any one time. He was the best batsman at a time when hardly anybody played cricket. Big deal, in the list of greatest sportsmen ever, he wouldn't be in my top 50.
I honestly think that saying Messi wouldn't be in your top fifty Barcelona players would be a less ridiculous remark.
In my list of greatest sportsmen ever, there isn't a list, just a definitive answer.
Cricket in those days was not far removed from the Oxford/University boat race, it was just basically England and Australia playing each other all the time. He'd obviously worked out exactly how to play the England bowlers, until the bodyline series. You can't argue with his record compared to everybody else at the time, but hardly anybody else did play cricket, apart from a few English toffs. He never played a series in the Indian sub-continent for example, with all the different conditions that that generates.
-
Never played on the sub-continent? So what? You just said India were crap.
He played on much worse pitches than today's with much worse equipment and training, against bowlers who were not much different from today's.
And please try to understand before one of us dies - if it was so much easier everybody else from that era would be nearer to his record, instead of matching fairly consistently the all-eras average.
Now, the rest of you carry on your debate for second place on the list.
-
Never played on the sub-continent? So what? You just said India were crap.
He played on much worse pitches than today's with much worse equipment and training, against bowlers who were not much different from today's.
And please try to understand before one of us dies - if it was so much easier everybody else from that era would be nearer to his record, instead of matching fairly consistently the all-eras average.
Now, the rest of you carry on your debate for second place on the list.
I understand perfectly thank you, I just happen to disagree that the best person in what was essentially a two team sport 80 years ago is the best sportsman ever. He isn't.
-
Cricket in those days was not far removed from the Oxford/University boat race, it was just basically England and Australia playing each other all the time. He'd obviously worked out exactly how to play the England bowlers, until the bodyline series. You can't argue with his record compared to everybody else at the time, but hardly anybody else did play cricket, apart from a few English toffs. He never played a series in the Indian sub-continent for example, with all the different conditions that that generates.
In other words Bradman played the majority of his games against the toughest opposition going. No easy, fill-yer-boots games for him. And at just about the peak of his career he lost 4 years to WW2. Had there been Tests played at that time, or had he played more games against the so-called lesser nations (and let's not forget he never played against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe), his record would almost certainly have been even better.
If there's anyone in another sport who dominated to such an extent that they are statistically twice as good as anyone else ever to play the game in 135 years, I'd like to hear about them.
-
Honestly Risso, I like and respect you and all that, but I've read more sense today from the conspiracy theorists on the Mars thread in off-topic.
According to your logic, if there was a two-man 100 metres between Jesse Owens and A. N. Other, and Owens ran it in 5 seconds, it wouldn't matter because it was two-man race.
When you can come up with a high-jumper who can jump 16 feet, a golfer who has won 36 majors, or a javelin thrower who can chuck the fucking thing out of the Olympic stadium, you'll have an argument. Until then, forget it.
-
Statistically Percy is correct, but as we all all know there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
I love this discussion by the way.
Anyway, best male athlete around at the moment? Whoever won the decathlon. Don't even know who he is but I'd like to see Bolt pole vault.
Viva Jess Ennis.
-
Statistically Percy is correct, but as we all all know there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
I love this discussion by the way.
Anyway, best male athlete around at the moment? Whoever won the decathlon. Don't even know who he is but I'd like to see Bolt pole vault.
Viva Jess Ennis.
Statistically he isn't. Usain Bolt is the only athlete ever to achieve a sprint double at the Olympics in successive games. He is therefore, infinitely better than any other sprinter if you want to bring stats into it.
-
Is he twice as fast as everybody else ever, or just a small percentage?
Actually, forget it. I think you're just pretending to be thick now to wind me up.
-
Is he twice as fast as everybody else ever, or just a small percentage?
Actually, forget it. I think you're just pretending to be thick now to wind me up.
That's it, when losing an argument, pretend that the other person doesn't understand.
I have never denied that Bradman was a brilliant batsman. But his feats were mostly against ONE other country, and his average was brought up by "fill your boots" series against India and South Africa who had just started playing test cricket. He also upped his average with tours in England after the end of WWII. So he was undoubtedly the best batsman of his era, by a long way, but he played in circumstances that will never be repeated. Tendulakar for example, has a lower average obviously, but has played far more tests, against a far wider range of teams and conditions. So if you want to say he's the best batsmen ever, then fair enough, I can't really be arsed to argue, but claiming he's the best world wide sportsmen ever based on some spurious statistical argument, nah, not having it.
-
Isn't a decathlete a jack of all trades but master of none? Bolt pisses all over the rest.
-
Not to plays Percy's games, but this "is Bolt twice as fast as anybody else" shows a startling lack of sense. The 100m obviously isn't a sport where that's possible, whereas cricket with it's scoring system where a 100 is a good score, is. For example, if somebody did the impossible next week, and ran the 100m in 9 seconds, they'd rightly be regarded as being the most sensational athlete ever, yet in percentage terms it's only really a small improvment. Half a second in the 100m due to the nature of the event is a huge margin, and would be more like scoring a 1,000 in a test match. To put it into context, a ten second 100 m is obviously twice as fast as a 20 second 100m. When I was a kid at school, the crap fat kids who were shit at games could do a 20 second 100m. It just demonstrates what a silly comparison Percy is attempting.
-
One runner who always gets overlooked is Lasse Viren, who did exactly what Bolt did by winning two events at successive Olympics.
-
I'm not comparing Bradman to the crap fat kids at school. I'm comparing him to the best batsmen of all-time, and he's close to twice as good as all of them.
Myriad abstract concepts that you keep coming up with aside, the fact is that whoever you nominate (as the greatest ever), I can come up with records, facts and statistics of other sportsmen that prove them to be at least very close in ability. Unless of course you nominate Bradman, then I'd be stumped like you.
I mean, credit for your imaginative concepts, but athletes who can run a hundred metres in nine seconds and are therefore better than Bradman have to actually exist before you start bringing them up as evidence. Just my opinion like, you carry on if it convinces you.
-
I'm not comparing Bradman to the crap fat kids at school. I'm comparing him to the best batsmen of all-time, and he's close to twice as good as all of them.
Myriad abstract concepts that you keep coming up with aside, the fact is that whoever you nominate (as the greatest ever), I can come up with records, facts and statistics of other sportsmen that prove them to be at least very close in ability. Unless of course you nominate Bradman, then I'd be stumped like you.
I realise that statistics aren't your strong point, but surely even you realise that to compare people, you have to take into account the conditions encountered. You can rightly compare Bradman with the other batsmen of the time, but not everybody since, and certainly not other sports with different systems of measurement. It's completely meaningless.
-
I'm not comparing Bradman to the crap fat kids at school. I'm comparing him to the best batsmen of all-time, and he's close to twice as good as all of them.
Myriad abstract concepts that you keep coming up with aside, the fact is that whoever you nominate (as the greatest ever), I can come up with records, facts and statistics of other sportsmen that prove them to be at least very close in ability. Unless of course you nominate Bradman, then I'd be stumped like you.
I realise that statistics aren't your strong point, but surely even you realise that to compare people, you have to take into account the conditions encountered. You can rightly compare Bradman with the other batsmen of the time, but not everybody since, and certainly not other sports with different systems of measurement. It's completely meaningless.
Funnily enough, it's often statisticians who are most convinced of Bradman's superiority, because of the store they put in facts. Remember them?
Tell me more about the bloke who can run the hundred metres in nine seconds, he sounds like a strong contender for runner-up.
-
One runner who always gets overlooked is Lasse Viren, who did exactly what Bolt did by winning two events at successive Olympics.
Pity the suspicion of blood doping hangs over his record.
-
One runner who always gets overlooked is Lasse Viren, who did exactly what Bolt did by winning two events at successive Olympics.
Pity the suspicion of blood doping hangs over his record.
Don't they all?
-
You can rightly compare Bradman with the other batsmen of the time, but not everybody since, and certainly not other sports with different systems of measurement. It's completely meaningless.
...says the bloke who just said 0.5 seconds = 1000 runs.
-
Can I nominate C B Fry as being one of the greatest ever all-round sportsmen?
With regard to the Bradman debate, I'd imagine that his Test average will never be beaten and that undoubtedly makes him the greatest ever batsman. Whether that makes him the greatest ever sportsman is an interesting discussion but one that I think is difficult to justify simply on the basis that, when taking the global perspective, cricket is a minority sport.
-
One runner who always gets overlooked is Lasse Viren, who did exactly what Bolt did by winning two events at successive Olympics.
Pity the suspicion of blood doping hangs over his record.
Don't they all?
Unfortunately, yes.
-
With regard to the Bradman debate, I'd imagine that his Test average will never be beaten and that undoubtedly makes him the greatest ever batsman. Whether that makes him the greatest ever sportsman is an interesting discussion but one that I think is difficult to justify simply on the basis that, when taking the global perspective, cricket is a minority sport.
I take that point but it's not just that Bradman is the greatest ever but the distance by which he is the greatest ever. As I've said before, if there's another sportsman who is statistically twice as good as anyone else in their field then I'd like to hear about them.
-
One runner who always gets overlooked is Lasse Viren, who did exactly what Bolt did by winning two events at successive Olympics.
Pity the suspicion of blood doping hangs over his record.
Don't they all?
Unfortunately, yes.
It is a shame that you go to work after seeing a great race and half the people discussing it sum it up as 'yeah, great masking agent'.
-
You can rightly compare Bradman with the other batsmen of the time, but not everybody since, and certainly not other sports with different systems of measurement. It's completely meaningless.
...says the bloke who just said 0.5 seconds = 1000 runs.
I was giving that as an example of just how truly ridiculous your assertion is that Usain Bolt needs to be twice as quick as everybody else to be compared with Bradman. If we're going to just pick one measure from cricket as the basis for greatness and ignore historical context and any other factors, then with a mere 7,000 test runs, Bradman has scored less than half the runs that Tendulkar has. He is therefore statistically, only half as good. Don't bother mentioning the number of games he played or who against, because apparently that isn't important. And don't get me started on his atrocious bowling record.
-
Just one comment on the Bradman debate, I can remember a similar discussion on TMS years ago and someone opined that Bradman probably got some very favourable umpiring calls, especially in home Tests. It would be a brave umpire who would raise his finger when thousands of Aussies were in the ground to see The Don bat all day. Of course it is purely speculation, but perhaps neutral umpires and video referral might have made a dent on his average. Doubt it would have been a 50 run difference though!
-
You can rightly compare Bradman with the other batsmen of the time, but not everybody since, and certainly not other sports with different systems of measurement. It's completely meaningless.
...says the bloke who just said 0.5 seconds = 1000 runs.
I was giving that as an example of just how truly ridiculous your assertion is that Usain Bolt needs to be twice as quick as everybody else to be compared with Bradman. If we're going to just pick one measure from cricket as the basis for greatness and ignore historical context and any other factors, then with a mere 7,000 test runs, Bradman has scored less than half the runs that Tendulkar has. He is therefore statistically, only half as good. Don't bother mentioning the number of games he played or who against, because apparently that isn't important. And don't get me started on his atrocious bowling record.
You mentioning his bowling record says nothing about my argument - I haven't mentioned Bolt's 1500 metres time or anything stupid like that.
I'm not ignoring historical context, I think it makes Bradman's record look even better. You, on the other hand, choose to ignore all that makes Bradman's record even more remarkable, like equipment, coaching, nutrition, fitness and probably the biggest (amongst many) disadvantage he suffered against the modern player, pitches. At the same time, you highlight everything that (you think) tarnishes his statistics. Another contradiction, in one breath saying he played constantly against the other best team, and in the next saying his record is down to the weakness of India and others. You also ignore the remarkably consistent statistics of every great player (but one) from every era, which is ultimately what proves the credility of those stats.
I think it would be reasonable to say that Jesse Owens might be able to compete with Bolt if he had access to all the advantages that the modern sprinter enjoys. It would be a volte-face then, if I denied that the same applies to Bradman. So, taking all historical context into account, I think he would be even further ahead if he played now.
-
C B Fry is a good shout. Played for England at football and cricket, and was joint long jump world record holder. He also played rugby to a reasonable level.
Let's see Bradman or Bolt match that. Bet they can't even jump backwards onto a mantlepiece . Another great episode of QI.
-
Let's see Bradman or Bolt match that. Bet they can't even jump backwards onto a mantlepiece . Another great episode of QI.
Or be offered the throne of Albania!
-
C B Fry is a good shout. Played for England at football and cricket, and was joint long jump world record holder. He also played rugby to a reasonable level.
Let's see Bradman or Bolt match that. Bet they can't even jump backwards onto a mantlepiece . Another great episode of QI.
Max Woosnam was the greater sportsman but, sadly, is less celebrated. He won Gold and Silver at the Olympics, won a doubles title at Wimbledon, captained England at football and Britain in the Davis Cup, scored a century at Lords and compiled a 147 at snooker.
As for sprinters, Bob Hayes has to be up there with the greatest of all time. He ran 9.91 (wind assisted) in Tokyo in 1964 on a cinder track, which was only beaten (legally) at the Olympics 32 years later and, during his short career, was only ever beaten twice over 100m and 100 yards.
-
C B Fry is a good shout. Played for England at football and cricket, and was joint long jump world record holder. He also played rugby to a reasonable level.
Let's see Bradman or Bolt match that. Bet they can't even jump backwards onto a mantlepiece . Another great episode of QI.
Max Woosnam was the greater sportsman but, sadly, is less celebrated. He won Gold and Silver at the Olympics, won a doubles title at Wimbledon, captained England at football and Britain in the Davis Cup, scored a century at Lords and compiled a 147 at snooker.
As for sprinters, Bob Hayes has to be up there with the greatest of all time. He ran 9.91 (wind assisted) in Tokyo in 1964 on a cinder track, which was only beaten (legally) at the Olympics 32 years later and, during his short career, was only ever beaten twice over 100m and 100 yards.
Bloody Hell. That is knowledge.
-
It's ephemeral to make assumptions and comparisions of sportsmens greatness whithout the knowledge of achievemnet from each era. It's almost impossible to compare cricket players from different generations, let alone crossing over sports.
e.g uncovered pitches.
you could try a top 10 list...i'd add Michael Johnson
-
C B Fry is a good shout. Played for England at football and cricket, and was joint long jump world record holder. He also played rugby to a reasonable level.
Let's see Bradman or Bolt match that. Bet they can't even jump backwards onto a mantlepiece . Another great episode of QI.
Max Woosnam was the greater sportsman but, sadly, is less celebrated. He won Gold and Silver at the Olympics, won a doubles title at Wimbledon, captained England at football and Britain in the Davis Cup, scored a century at Lords and compiled a 147 at snooker.
While impressive, his century Lord's was only in a schools match and his Olympic medals were for tennis in which his main achievements (Olympics and Wimbledon) were all for doubles.
-
or Alf Tucker (The Tough of the Track)
-
I see that shit bloke just did a WR time with his mates in the 100m relay .
-
I see that shit bloke just did a WR time with his mates in the 100m relay .
Please show where people said he was shit in this thread. Otherwise I might just think you're trolling and deliberately trying to wind folks up.
-
Readit from the start then.
-
Readit from the start then.
Show me where someone said he was shit. It's a simple enough request, or are you deliberately trying to wind people up?
-
That's it, when losing an argument, pretend that the other person doesn't understand.
That's seems to be very much so the feelings by some on this thread. You only have to read other media to see the world thinks different.
-
Readit from the start then.
Show me where someone said he was shit. It's a simple enough request, or are you deliberately trying to wind people up?
No (I'm browsing on an iPad not a PC and you can single out the various comments) and No. I've been here for many years and that's not me. I don't do that. I have a genuine disagreement with another members POV which I back up with facts of that days performances .
-
You can post the reply numbers of the posts saying he's shit if you can't quote. Or you can always admit that no one in this thread has ever said he was shit.
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
Which nobody has. Carry on Trolling.
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
Which nobody has. Carry on Trolling.
So disagreeing with you is "trolling" ? How adult.
Nice to see that after I left it at page 3 there are others who have echoed my sentiments that you were wrong in your content.
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
So you're admitting no one has said he's shit?
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
Which nobody has. Carry on Trolling.
So disagreeing with you is "trolling" ? How adult.
Nice to see that after I left it at page 3 there are others who have echoed my sentiments that you were wrong in your content.
There's disagreeing and there's the sort of openly provocative posts which you have used since the start of this thread, where you have made insulting comments and are now lying about what others have said on here. It's noticeable that you've posted on no other thread in over a month, yet on three occasions in the past few days you've been able to come on here within minutes.
-
Bolt is shit......shit hot.
-
You can only be as good as the events you compete in and the people / teams you compete against and at the era in time you compete.
At present Bolt is the best there has been in the 100 metres. Not so sure about the 200 metres as I think Michael Johnson is up there.
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
Which nobody has. Carry on Trolling.
So disagreeing with you is "trolling" ? How adult.
Nice to see that after I left it at page 3 there are others who have echoed my sentiments that you were wrong in your content.
There's disagreeing and there's the sort of openly provocative posts which you have used since the start of this thread, where you have made insulting comments and are now lying about what others have said on here. It's noticeable that you've posted on no other thread in over a month, yet on three occasions in the past few days you've been able to come on here within minutes.
So now I'm a liar ? You are absolutely condescending and patronising.
For the record , YOU posted a link stating that " We have seen better than Usain Bolt" .......... Well Bolt is a SPRINTER, not middle distance, not hurdles, not Marathon but A SPRINTER.
As a SPRINTER he is THE WORLDS BEST EVER. FACT.
Yet YOU continue to compare him against RUNNER that has done multi discipline but was not a SPRINTER.
YOU are comparing Apples and Pears and expecting a valid comparison.
That Mr Woodhall is the facts. World Records and achievements do not lie.
I hope you have the balls to apologise to me for calling me a liar.
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
Which nobody has. Carry on Trolling.
So disagreeing with you is "trolling" ? How adult.
Nice to see that after I left it at page 3 there are others who have echoed my sentiments that you were wrong in your content.
There's disagreeing and there's the sort of openly provocative posts which you have used since the start of this thread, where you have made insulting comments and are now lying about what others have said on here. It's noticeable that you've posted on no other thread in over a month, yet on three occasions in the past few days you've been able to come on here within minutes.
So now I'm a liar ? You are absolutely condescending and patronising.
For the record , YOU posted a link stating that " We have seen better than Usain Bolt" .......... Well Bolt is a SPRINTER, not middle distance, not hurdles, not Marathon but A SPRINTER.
As a SPRINTER he is THE WORLDS BEST EVER. FACT.
Yet YOU continue to compare him against RUNNER that has done multi discipline but was not a SPRINTER.
YOU are comparing Apples and Pears and expecting a valid comparison.
That Mr Woodhall is the facts. World Records and achievements do not lie.
I hope you have the balls to apologise to me for calling me a liar.
If you're going to use words, it's best to know what they mean. I'm not being condescending, or patronising. Quite the opposite, in fact. Nobody is denying that Usain Bolt isn't the fastest runner ever. The original statement was that Birmingham has seen a better runner performing. That's 'better' not 'faster.' The facts that you are so keen to shout about bear this out. What your angry capitals are all about I don't know.
And I don't intend to apologise for calling you a liar because on this thread you have told lies. Nobody has said Usian Bolt is sShit," nobody from page three onwards "echoed your sentiments." As I said earlier, I find it strange that you haven't been on any other thread since early July, yet have found time to visit this one so regularly.
-
Or you can admit that those arguing against Bolt, had said that he was merely a regular top athlete rather than the spectacular one of a kind that he is proving to be.
Which nobody has. Carry on Trolling.
So disagreeing with you is "trolling" ? How adult.
Nice to see that after I left it at page 3 there are others who have echoed my sentiments that you were wrong in your content.
There's disagreeing and there's the sort of openly provocative posts which you have used since the start of this thread, where you have made insulting comments and are now lying about what others have said on here. It's noticeable that you've posted on no other thread in over a month, yet on three occasions in the past few days you've been able to come on here within minutes.
So now I'm a liar ? You are absolutely condescending and patronising.
For the record , YOU posted a link stating that " We have seen better than Usain Bolt" .......... Well Bolt is a SPRINTER, not middle distance, not hurdles, not Marathon but A SPRINTER.
As a SPRINTER he is THE WORLDS BEST EVER. FACT.
Yet YOU continue to compare him against RUNNER that has done multi discipline but was not a SPRINTER.
YOU are comparing Apples and Pears and expecting a valid comparison.
That Mr Woodhall is the facts. World Records and achievements do not lie.
I hope you have the balls to apologise to me for calling me a liar.
If you're going to use words, it's best to know what they mean. I'm not being condescending, or patronising. Quite the opposite, in fact. Nobody is denying that Usain Bolt isn't the fastest runner ever. The original statement was that Birmingham has seen a better runner performing. That's 'better' not 'faster.' The facts that you are so keen to shout about bear this out. What your angry capitals are all about I don't know.
And I don't intend to apologise for calling you a liar because on this thread you have told lies. Nobody has said Usian Bolt is sShit," nobody from page three onwards "echoed your sentiments." As I said earlier, I find it strange that you haven't been on any other thread since early July, yet have found time to visit this one so regularly.
Your usage of the word "Better" is one of mere opinion. Your argument derailed by fact.
Yes there are others agreeing since page 3 and indeed the thread.
The usage of Capitalisation of letters is for Emphasis - indeed it is the third recognised form, after italics and bold. I thought you knew your literary forms ? Not "Angry" , maybe you are looking at yourself ?
I said he was "shit" as a form of sarcasm.
Whether I lurk or post on this site, is my prerogative . It's not always interesting to do so. This particular thread struck an interest, is that alright with you ?
As for you not having the balls to apologise, that says more about you than I.
-
TRO - KRO
-
It might be for emphasis, but I still don't understand what you were talking about.
Not apologising does say something about me. It says I've posted nothing on here that I need to apologise for. I certainly didn't tell a lie then say I was being sarcastic, neither did I repeat a previous lie. Feel free to pop back when something else interests you. Strange, though, that a Villa supporter isn't interested in five weeks of Villa comment, but can regularly be on another topic within minutes.
-
So have we established who is the best runner then? It's got to be Tony Daley or Gabby Agbonlahor for me.
-
Yes you know perfectly well but then again, even after the emphasis and you're still not understanding the subject, no wonder the sarcasm went over your head. Your refusal to apologise probably comes from your ignorance.
As for my commitment to Villa ? I've had season tickets more than likely as long as you . Not condescending and patronising ? Pull the other one.
Goodnight Dave. I'll be the bigger man here and leave you to your own reverence .
-
Could this thread bugger off to "Off Topic" ?
-
Yes you know perfectly well but then again, even after the emphasis and you're still not understanding the subject, no wonder the sarcasm went over your head. Your refusal to apologise probably comes from your ignorance.
As for my commitment to Villa ? I've had season tickets more than likely as long as you . Not condescending and patronising ? Pull the other one.
Goodnight Dave. I'll be the bigger man here and leave you to your own reverence .
And another point successfully missed, which is strange for such a self-proclaimed genius. Nothing to do with your "commitment to Villa," just odd that you don't want to talk about the club on here yet you can find so much time for other things.
You started with insults so it's only fair that you finish with a few. What with you being such a bigger man and all that.
-
Readit from the start then.
Show me where someone said he was shit. It's a simple enough request, or are you deliberately trying to wind people up?
No (I'm browsing on an iPad not a PC and you can single out the various comments) and No. I've been here for many years and that's not me. I don't do that. I have a genuine disagreement with another members POV which I back up with facts of that days performances .
Don't worry. I've read it from the start and can confirm that you are, in fact, lying.
Here's Risso (Harding) and Tro (Cheswick) against the rest in the H&V therapy group:
"Stay off my side".
-
Sanctimonious - pretending to be better than other people.
-
Warley Wonder but able to spell.
-
Group hug called for.
Chill out people.
-
One of the things I like about H&V is when you spend an evening away from it, then you come back, pick a thread at random, see there are three or four seperate running arguments going on, and every one of them looks utterly nuts but people are passionately getting stuck in.
I can't even work out what most of you are disagreeing on.
-
Could this thread bugger off to "Off Topic" ?
No, but you could.
*wink*
-
Would anyone now like to have a serious, sensible debate about whether an athlete who broke many records at many distances was better than an athlete who was quicker?
-
Would anyone now like to have a serious, sensible debate about whether an athlete who broke many records at many distances was better than an athlete who was quicker?
We tried, but it was hijacked by Troll Right On.
-
Would anyone now like to have a serious, sensible debate about whether an athlete who broke many records at many distances was better than an athlete who was quicker?
We tried, but it was hijacked by Troll Right On.
I think he's reached the end of the road hasn't he?
-
Would anyone now like to have a serious, sensible debate about whether an athlete who broke many records at many distances was better than an athlete who was quicker?
I'd advise caution on assigning too much significance to records broken in the infancy of organised sport. I suspect that the records of the day were based on the performances in west Europe and north America at most. No account would have been taken of those further east and in Asia, Africa and the rest of the world.
I'd argue therefore that we simply cannot say how good shrubb was relative to his own time let alone how he he compares with a great modern day runner.
-
Right, having won gold medals at 800m, 1500m, 5000m AND the Marathon I feel that the greatest athlete in The World right now is David Weir.
When Bolt gives Mo Farah a race I might rate him as high.
-
When Bolt gives Mo Farah a race I might rate him as high.
100m or 200m?
-
When Bolt gives Mo Farah a race I might rate him as high.
100m or 200m?
Good point, although I'm not the one saying that Bolt is the greatest athlete ever am I?
If Bolt ever wins a gold medal in the 5000 metres I'll rate him as good as David Weir. Same for Mo Farah if he ever wins a sprint.
-
When Bolt gives Mo Farah a race I might rate him as high.
100m or 200m?
Good point, although I'm not the one saying that Bolt is the greatest athlete ever am I?
If Bolt ever wins a gold medal in the 5000 metres I'll rate him as good as David Weir. Same for Mo Farah if he ever wins a sprint.
Right on!
-
Bradman isn't even the best cricketer. That accolade surely goes to the great Garry Sobers -brilliant batsman, fast/swing/wrist spin bowler, brilliant fielder who was happy to take the gloves in the event of injury.
What a player!
-
Bradman isn't even the best cricketer. That accolade surely goes to the great Garry Sobers -brilliant batsman, fast/swing/wrist spin bowler, brilliant fielder who was happy to take the gloves in the event of injury.
What a player!
Best all-round cricketer, for sure, but for sheer statistics Bradman is the greatest player of a ball game in history.
-
Statistically Ivanhoe, Geoff Thomas, David Bardsley and other assorted shithouses have played more games at a higher level than Sir Brian. Lies, damned lies and all that.
-
Those are stats based on opinion (of England managers). I think it's fairly unlikely that Sir Brian wouldn't have been picked for England more often if he'd scored at double the rate of every other striker who'd ever played football.