|
Post by gibbo on Jul 4, 2024 8:04:39 GMT
Murray may have been the best male tennis player we have produced but it ends there. Murray's won 3 Grand Slams in an era of Federer / Nadal / Dvokovic dominance, + 2 Olympic Gold Medals. Very strong argument for him being Britain's greatest ever sportsman.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 4, 2024 8:14:19 GMT
I do think these are largely pointless debates, because you can't compare a tennis player to a cyclist to a footballer to a cricketer, etc. and your own bias for sporting preference will come into to some degree. Cav and Murray have both been magnificent in their own fields. Better to simply acknowledge that and leave it there. The argument about both of them is, I think, within those fields rather between them, e.g. could they have won more if Federer, etc. (Murray) or illness (Cav) hadn't intervened?
|
|
|
Post by hedleyverity on Jul 4, 2024 8:34:53 GMT
Murray may have been the best male tennis player we have produced but it ends there. Murray's won 3 Grand Slams in an era of Federer / Nadal / Dvokovic dominance, + 2 Olympic Gold Medals. Very strong argument for him being Britain's greatest ever sportsman. Pointless argument, but if he’s not close to being the best in the world in his own era it’s not a strong argument for him being a greater sportsman than those who were, like Cav, or Thompson, or Redgrave
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Jul 4, 2024 8:49:34 GMT
Murray's won 3 Grand Slams in an era of Federer / Nadal / Dvokovic dominance, + 2 Olympic Gold Medals. Very strong argument for him being Britain's greatest ever sportsman. Pointless argument, but if he’s not close to being the best in the world in his own era it’s not a strong argument for him being a greater sportsman than those who were, like Cav, or Thompson, or Redgrave
exactly. 3rd/4th best during a really strong era is incredibly good, but not exactly 'best ever' territory.
The main knock on Cav (and even moreso Redgrave) as 'greatest ever' is that the level of competition in cycling isn't quite at the level of more global sports, whereas athletics probably was in the biggest three sports worldwide in the 80s Thompson era (albeit it's declined in importance since then)
|
|
|
Post by hedleyverity on Jul 4, 2024 8:53:11 GMT
Pointless argument, but if he’s not close to being the best in the world in his own era it’s not a strong argument for him being a greater sportsman than those who were, like Cav, or Thompson, or Redgrave
exactly. 3rd/4th best during a really strong era is incredibly good, but not exactly 'best ever' territory.
The main knock on Cav (and even moreso Redgrave) as 'greatest ever' is that the level of competition in cycling isn't quite at the level of more global sports, whereas athletics probably was in the biggest three sports worldwide in the 80s Thompson era (albeit it's declined in importance since then)
It’s an even more restricted field, but Sarah Storey should be right up there too, vast number of medals over 2 sports
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Jul 4, 2024 8:57:57 GMT
Pointless argument, but if he’s not close to being the best in the world in his own era it’s not a strong argument for him being a greater sportsman than those who were, like Cav, or Thompson, or Redgrave He's been the best in the world though, won slams, been World No.1 at a couple of points (we wasn't the best in the World for 10+ years, but neither were Federer, Nadal or Djokovic in truth, they all has spells as that best player).
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Jul 4, 2024 9:00:04 GMT
Good shout, the other one that stands out to me as a contender is Lennox Lewis - probably the final champion from the era where boxing was still a big deal
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 4, 2024 9:08:34 GMT
But boxing is at least as restricted than cycling.
There aren't many truly global sports at the top level when you start to look at it. Football obviously is but neither rugby code is, cricket isn't, athletics might be but only if you include all aspects of athletics (East African nations perform well on a small number of track events but don't really show up for field events, for example). I'm not knocking any of these sports, but global reach is a tricky metric to add to the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 4, 2024 9:25:04 GMT
But boxing is at least as restricted than cycling. There aren't many truly global sports at the top level when you start to look at it. Football obviously is but neither rugby code is, cricket isn't, athletics might be but only if you include all aspects of athletics (East African nations perform well on a small number of track events but don't really show up for field events, for example). I'm not knocking any of these sports, but global reach is a tricky metric to add to the discussion. Then there is the comparison in fitness between a sprinter and the long distance runner. Both i,d guess are of equal fitness but their bodies will dictate which distance they,d succesfully run at. Is Ben fitter than an outfield player at a similar age as no matter what neither could do each others job.
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Jul 4, 2024 9:51:48 GMT
But boxing is at least as restricted than cycling. There aren't many truly global sports at the top level when you start to look at it. Football obviously is but neither rugby code is, cricket isn't, athletics might be but only if you include all aspects of athletics (East African nations perform well on a small number of track events but don't really show up for field events, for example). I'm not knocking any of these sports, but global reach is a tricky metric to add to the discussion. Era makes a difference here I think.
Similar to athletics, boxing was one of the biggest sports in the world until the late 90s - it's still a huge sport in a lot of Latin America and bits of Asia, even if it's massively declined in the US / UK / Europe in recent years. I'm thinking how people like McGuigan / Bruno / Eubank were massively well known British / Irish sporting figures of the time, with Tyson arguably the biggest sporting figure in the world for a couple of years, whereas I couldn't name a boxer other than Tyson Fury now.
Globally, I wonder if weight classes make a difference here, as the UK boxing scene always seemed to be more about the mid-range weight classes, so fighters from lower weight classes dominated by South Korea / Venezuela / Dominican Republic etc never made quite the same impact in the UK as the bigger guys?
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 4, 2024 9:56:35 GMT
\There are still a number of ameteur boxing clubs that are flourishing across the country for both sexes and all age groups where numbers are not declining even if the pro game is in decline that hasn,t been helped by aging heavyweights looking for a final pay day.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,298
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 4, 2024 12:50:21 GMT
But boxing is at least as restricted than cycling. There aren't many truly global sports at the top level when you start to look at it. Football obviously is but neither rugby code is, cricket isn't, athletics might be but only if you include all aspects of athletics (East African nations perform well on a small number of track events but don't really show up for field events, for example). I'm not knocking any of these sports, but global reach is a tricky metric to add to the discussion. Era makes a difference here I think.
Similar to athletics, boxing was one of the biggest sports in the world until the late 90s - it's still a huge sport in a lot of Latin America and bits of Asia, even if it's massively declined in the US / UK / Europe in recent years. I'm thinking how people like McGuigan / Bruno / Eubank were massively well known British / Irish sporting figures of the time, with Tyson arguably the biggest sporting figure in the world for a couple of years, whereas I couldn't name a boxer other than Tyson Fury now.
Globally, I wonder if weight classes make a difference here, as the UK boxing scene always seemed to be more about the mid-range weight classes, so fighters from lower weight classes dominated by South Korea / Venezuela / Dominican Republic etc never made quite the same impact in the UK as the bigger guys?
Perhaps so, but it's still not got a full reach. Cycling also covers many disciplines, which is a comparison to weight divisions in some ways. So cyclocross is very popular in northern Europe - practically the national sport in places - mountain biking has a decent reach, track cycling is one part of the cycling world where Asian countries are becoming more involved at the global level. It's all relative to football, of course, and as you hint at, there is a risk of seeing this through UK or Euro-centric eyes. What we consider to be big may be meaningless in SE Asia and vice versa. I'm not claiming cycling has a massive global reach. But I think that for most of these sports, the audience and talent pool is restricted in certain ways for different reasons. I suppose I'm saying that Cav's accomplishments, for example, are not diminished in comparison to, say, Lennox Lewis because of their comparative competition.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 5, 2024 8:26:32 GMT
Think a lot might be on the actual ability of the person to have facilities available to play the sport of choice. In poorer countries its the ones with the money who can play to the point of moving countries. Football might be our national sport but most can find a facility for their preferred one if they live in a large town or city. In asia where cricket is king not so much. Then there is the average build of the person themselves to be taken into consideration. Its hard to imagine a team of the average sized indian or chinese ever playing either grade of rugby with a big success or a south sea islander playing a more technical sport where size does not matter.
|
|
|
Post by scfc73 on Jul 5, 2024 12:58:32 GMT
But boxing is at least as restricted than cycling. There aren't many truly global sports at the top level when you start to look at it. Football obviously is but neither rugby code is, cricket isn't, athletics might be but only if you include all aspects of athletics (East African nations perform well on a small number of track events but don't really show up for field events, for example). I'm not knocking any of these sports, but global reach is a tricky metric to add to the discussion. Era makes a difference here I think.
Similar to athletics, boxing was one of the biggest sports in the world until the late 90s - it's still a huge sport in a lot of Latin America and bits of Asia, even if it's massively declined in the US / UK / Europe in recent years. I'm thinking how people like McGuigan / Bruno / Eubank were massively well known British / Irish sporting figures of the time, with Tyson arguably the biggest sporting figure in the world for a couple of years, whereas I couldn't name a boxer other than Tyson Fury now.
Globally, I wonder if weight classes make a difference here, as the UK boxing scene always seemed to be more about the mid-range weight classes, so fighters from lower weight classes dominated by South Korea / Venezuela / Dominican Republic etc never made quite the same impact in the UK as the bigger guys?
Agree with your Lennox Lewis shout but there's still plenty of great fighters in this era & still some great match ups to be had. I do think though that they way the big fights are now all ppv hasn't helped boxing's popularity. I don't have a problem with it for the really huge events but there's been some bouts that in no way should they have been ppv. Not as many people will pay extra to watch a lower quality ppv than would watch it if free to air or included in a normal subscription.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Jul 13, 2024 20:56:37 GMT
Shouldn’t really let yesterday’s Test match win go by without comment. Easy win for England, a superb performance from Atkinson with his 12 wicket haul, a nice innings from JamieSmith and Jimmy Anderson so close to taking the final wicket of the game.
|
|