Originally posted by Rich
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
BBC Sports Personality of the Year 2012
Collapse
X
-
Must say both of Mo's wins will stay with me forever. I've never felt so....erm....not sure what the word is.......anyway whatever it is I've never felt it watching athletics during my adult life. It'll actually be a good show this year, looking forward to reliving some truly inspiring moments.Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’
-
I realise this will be dismissed as the ravings of someone who wears lycra and therefore can only be hopelessly biased, but I don't get this idea that Murray deserves it. Winning the US Open is a fine achievement but it simply doesn't compare to winning the Tour de France. No Briton has won it before. Ever. No-one had even finished on the podium before.
Whereas in tennis, Rusedski was runner-up in the US Open only a few years ago (what was it, 97?) and even Henman repeatedly made/blew semi-finals at Wimbledon. If Murray had won Wimbledon then I can see the emotional/pressure argument. But he didn't.
And obviously Laura Trott deserves to be on the shortlist. Maybe instead of Kath Grainger. But then I rather like Grainger so maybe not.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
It was the first Briton to win a major for nearly 80 years. That's is comparable to Wiggins and the Tour. Also, Wiggo was favourite to win (or at least it seemed like that in the doco) whereas Murray definitely wasn't.Originally posted by Neil Young View PostI realise this will be dismissed as the ravings of someone who wears lycra and therefore can only be hopelessly biased, but I don't get this idea that Murray deserves it. Winning the US Open is a fine achievement but it simply doesn't compare to winning the Tour de France. No Briton has won it before. Ever. No-one had even finished on the podium before.
Whereas in tennis, Rusedski was runner-up in the US Open only a few years ago (what was it, 97?) and even Henman repeatedly made/blew semi-finals at Wimbledon. If Murray had won Wimbledon then I can see the emotional/pressure argument. But he didn't.
And obviously Laura Trott deserves to be on the shortlist. Maybe instead of Kath Grainger. But then I rather like Grainger so maybe not.
There is nothing between the two and it basically comes down to which sport you prefer.
Comment
-
I know all that and I don't think they're comparable. Of course it's personal taste as far as the sports are concerned but the achievements are on different levels..
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment
-
Is that really any different than the people who were cheering on Mo etc? I bet 99% of them don't watch athletics throughout the year. Same can be said for the cycling. It's just that the tennis tends to be more high profile.Originally posted by Phoenix07 View Post
I don't like him because of the grasshoppers that suddenly pop out during Wimbledon and then go into hibernation again. I think he's a humble bloke who has kept his focus and worked hard. So basically, I like him for his personality, but I don't like him because of the annual pricks who shout 'Come on Andy' as much as they can. Not his fault I know. His mum cheering like a she-male doesn't help my dislike around the annual Murray circus.
Comment
-
Murray 'Mania' (whoever came up with that needs castrating) has been around for a good number of years. I'll only hear about Mo Farah and co when they talk about the Olympics or on the news if they do well in other events for a few seconds. That's it.Originally posted by Reece View PostIs that really any different than the people who were cheering on Mo etc? I bet 99% of them don't watch athletics throughout the year. Same can be said for the cycling. It's just that the tennis tends to be more high profile.
Comment
-
Yes, I understand that.Originally posted by Shaggy View PostI very much disagree.

But I don't see how it bears examination.
For a start, there's an absolute difference between being the first Briton to win something for eighty years and being the first Briton to win something. It's not just quantitative, it's a qualitative difference. And as I said before, no Briton had even come close to winning the Tour. Whereas the US Open was almost won by that gurning pile of teeth and forehead only fifteen years ago (from memory).
The team thing is often held against Wiggins' achievement but of course there's 'Team Murray'
too, as you don't get to be in the world top ten in tennis without an entourage of coaches, technicians and cheerleaders.
Winning the Tour de France is the absolute pinnacle of cycling. It can't just not be topped, it can't even be equalled. Nothing else comes close. Whereas the US Open is regarded as the equal of the other three Grand Slams and, as I implied earlier, the one everyone here wants him to win more than any other is Wimbledon.
I could go on but better not.
.
Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
May the Lord bless this post.
Comment



Comment