Who is the greatest?

[Pablo]

Bollocks. What artificial criterion are you dragging in to make that idiotic pronouncement?

EDIT: that came across as a lot harsher than intended. It is idiotic though.

I just knew it would wind you up!

[Neil Young]

I've just watched live coverage of Contador, Evans and Valverde climbing up Mont Ventoux. That has got to be harder than bashing a stationary ball.

It's going to be even harder after they've raced 3000km in three weeks which will be the situation on the penultimate day of the Tour.

Anyway, you're not even the real Pablo.

[Shaggy]

Federer exists in an era when there is at least one player of comparable talent (Nadal) whereas Woods doesn't - the existence of the other does not make either Federer or Nadal less 'great'.

In your opinion. I disagree. In other eras Phil Mickelson would clean up. He is a man of vast talent, and Els (pre injuries) and Singh were not far behind.

[Shaggy]

Aye, he lost his no. 1 spot to Vijay Singh who was no. 1 for 32 weeks in 2004-2005.

Vijay also took home most prize money in 2003, 2004 and 2008...

Fair point about the no.1 spot, but the prize money thing is a misnomer. For a start Woods missed large parts of 09 through injury, and secondly he is selective about the tournaments in which he participates and played in far fewer than Singh.

[Neil Young]

This debate reminds me of the possibly apocryphal cricket commentary when someone (probably Tony Greig) was marvelling at Steve Waugh's performance with bat and ball and over-excitedly proclaimed, "He's got to be the best all-rounder in the world!"

His co-commentator quietly said, "He's not even the best all-rounder in his family."

[captainfog]

This debate reminds me of the possibly apocryphal cricket commentary when someone (probably Tony Greig) was marvelling at Steve Waugh's performance with bat and ball and over-excitedly proclaimed, "He's got to be the best all-rounder in the world!"

His co-commentator quietly said, "He's not even the best all-rounder in his family."

It was also used on the pitch:

Mark Waugh and John Ormond

Mark Waugh: "What are you doing here, you're not good enough to play for England."
John Ormond: "At least I'm the best cricketer in my family."

[Shaggy]

This debate reminds me of the possibly apocryphal cricket commentary when someone (probably Tony Greig) was marvelling at Steve Waugh's performance with bat and ball and over-excitedly proclaimed, "He's got to be the best all-rounder in the world!"

His co-commentator quietly said, "He's not even the best all-rounder in his family."

Classic.

[captainfog]

McGrath to Ramnaresh Sarwan: "So what does Brian Lara's dick taste like?"

Sarwan: "I don't know. Ask your wife."

McGrath (losing it): "If you ever ****ing mention my wife again, I'll ****ing rip your ****ing throat out."

[captainfog]

Ian Healy & Arjuna Ranatunga

Healy's legendary comment which was picked up by the Channel Nine microphones when Ranatunga called for a runner on a particularly hot night during a one dayer in Sydney...

"You don't get a runner for being an overweight, unfit, fat c*nt!!!"

[Neil Young]

So, what's the greatest cricket commentary/stump microphone moment?

1. Greig on the Waugh brothers
2. McGrath being a ****
3. Healy's fattist remark (extra marks for irony)
4. Johnners and Aggers creasing up
5. "The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey"
6. Tiger Woods
7. Roger Federer
8. Eddy Merckx

Vote now...

[Darkon]

I'm about to go out for lunch and will address this when I get back.

How many hours are your lunch then?

You will soon change to SaggyAlonso if that continues!

[Shaggy]

How many hours are your lunch then?

You will soon change to SaggyAlonso if that continues!

Yeah yeah yeah. Came back later than expected and got busy. OK...

But still, out of the 160, only 10 or so a really in contest for wining. You hardly concern youself with the players placed 20+ coming last round... and properly not even 10+.

But Golf is far less physical than tennis, football etc. and calling it a proper sport means that you could put in Darts, Billiard, mini-golf and such as a top sport as well. The only thing that keeps golf from being a pub-game is the size of the course really.

As I asked earlier, which footballer at the age of 38 would you consider the be amongst the elite of players? Same goes with Tennis...

Tiger Woods is very good at what he does, and the best at it there has ever been - but I would still put federer above him.

Don't get me wrong i enjoy playing Golf once in a while - but I don't go home bragging about my day of sports.

You can play darts and billiards in a pub. Hence they are games. Golf is an outdoor physical pursuit, hence it's a sport.

Edwin van Der Sar is 38 and has just been voted the best keeper in the 'best league in the world'. Whatever your opinion him, it is a fact that he is among the elite, being the goalkeeper for those very successful *******s.

I fail to see why being an 'older' high achiever in a sport, or being able to compete with the elite when you're over 35, makes it any less of a sport.

As for 38 year olds in tennis, that obviously doesn't happen as almost all tennis players tend to retire at a relatively early age. This usually has as much to do with touring the world incessantly as the physical demands. Although again I don't really see the relevance of this.

[Neil Young]

The relevance is that staying ten or fifteen years at the top in tennis is virtually impossible because of the physical demands. That's simply not true for golf. That's not to say Woods' achievement is any the less but that you can't dismiss Federer because his time at the top is shorter. Sapples 'n' pears.

It doesn't really matter whether or not it's indoors, in a pub or wherever - that seems entirely arbitrary to me. I mean, badminton and tennis are played indoors - are they not sports?

Of course golf is a game. So is football, tennis, cricket, rugby and everything else that isn't simply about being the quickest or throwing the furthest.

What those purely athletic activities have in common with many games is the physicality, the athleticism required. Something that darts doesn't require at all and golf doesn't require as much as say, to pick something entirely at random, tennis.

[Shaggy]

Well the whole game/sport thing is really nothing more than semantics anyway, but to lump golf in with darts seems thoroughly disingenuous to me.

Clearly badminton and tennis are sports.

I still don't see it as relevant as the Woods advocates are hardly basing his perceived superiority on a favourable comparison with Federer in terms of time spent at the top. It goes without saying that golfers can maintain a career for greater lengths of time than tennis players. I don't see how this can in any way give Federer an edge over Woods, or indeed vice-versa.

[Neil Young]

Ah, I thought you were suggesting Woods is better because Federer isn't number 1 in his sport any more. My point was the shorter career doesn't invalidate his claims to greatness. I agree it gives neither an edge in this grand debate/waste of time.

I wouldn't seriously suggest darts and golf are the same but they do share characteristics, more than tennis and darts do and much more then, for instance, cycling and darts which really have nothing in common whatsoever.

I agree it's all becoming about semantics but it's so silly to argue about these things it's almost inevitable it descends to this sort of thing - we're looking for some definitive criteria to make a valid comparison and that's impossible really.

Except for the bit about athleticism - I'm entirely right about that. Of course, you may disagree. It's your right to be wrong.