SPOTY 2014

finchy

I think that the problem with Hamilton/F1 is that the general public has no real way of knowing who is genuinely the best in the world. Apart from some other motor sports and possibly horse-racing, I can't think of another sport in which you can't judge a competitor's/team's quality by looking at what they've won over their careers. Obviously Hamilton is good, but how does he compare to Vettel, for example?

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

The problem is, you can only beat those in front of you.

I know... but to give you a cycling comparison, hoping you know what I am talking about Miguel Indurain won 5 Tour de France... quite unremarkably... will he go down in history like one of the greatest? He should based on that, but he won't because he won against a very weak field... he didn't have a real credible opponent... he didn't have to stretch himself over his abilities to clench those wins... he did his honest job and that was good enough. Which is pretty much what Hamilton did this season. Not his fault, doesn't diminish his talent, but does diminish his achievements, that's for sure.
Given Vettel and Alonso has crap cars, winning the title was almost a given...

I'm afraid when it comes to sport it's all about the process rather than the actual result. If you look at the boxing statistics, you might end up thinking Joe Calzaghe is one of the greats of the sport, a greater boxer than Sugar Ray Leonard and even greater than Muhammad Ali... problem is he wasn't... he terminated his career with a clean sheet having defeated rather mediocre fighters... and that's a fact... he never had the chance to fight the best out there

bianchimoon

johnfinch wrote:

I think that the problem with Hamilton/F1 is that the general public has no real way of knowing who is genuinely the best in the world. Apart from some other motor sports and possibly horse-racing, I can't think of another sport in which you can't judge a competitor's/team's quality by looking at what they've won over their careers. Obviously Hamilton is good, but how does he compare to Vettel, for example?

You can't as it's not an 'individual' sport, the performance of the driver is dictated by the performance of the car, the performance of the car is dictated by the performance of the team as a whole from initial concept to torquing a bolt. The end result is an amalgamation of talents

ugo.santalucia

bianchimoon wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I think that the problem with Hamilton/F1 is that the general public has no real way of knowing who is genuinely the best in the world. Apart from some other motor sports and possibly horse-racing, I can't think of another sport in which you can't judge a competitor's/team's quality by looking at what they've won over their careers. Obviously Hamilton is good, but how does he compare to Vettel, for example?

You can't as it's not an 'individual' sport, the performance of the driver is dictated by the performance of the car, the performance of the car is dictated by the performance of the team as a whole from initial concept to torquing a bolt. The end result is an amalgamation of talents

Well, looking at what Senna did on a wet Monaco with a Toleman or something equally crap, one gets the idea of what is possible if a driver is head and shoulders above the others... of course you need the right conditions, those that level the field and allow the talent to emerge. That's why F1 is pointless... a couple of drops of rain and the safety car stops the racing... what's the bloody point???
The reality is that because of the money involved, it is a constructors championship... Mercedes and Co don't give a toss about the pilots, it's all about showing how great their engine is

bianchimoon

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I think that the problem with Hamilton/F1 is that the general public has no real way of knowing who is genuinely the best in the world. Apart from some other motor sports and possibly horse-racing, I can't think of another sport in which you can't judge a competitor's/team's quality by looking at what they've won over their careers. Obviously Hamilton is good, but how does he compare to Vettel, for example?

You can't as it's not an 'individual' sport, the performance of the driver is dictated by the performance of the car, the performance of the car is dictated by the performance of the team as a whole from initial concept to torquing a bolt. The end result is an amalgamation of talents

Well, looking at what Senna did on a wet Monaco with a Toleman or something equally crap, one gets the idea of what is possible if a driver is head and shoulders above the others... of course you need the right conditions, those that level the field and allow the talent to emerge. That's why F1 is pointless... a couple of drops of rain and the safety car stops the racing... what's the bloody point???
The reality is that because of the money involved, it is a constructors championship... Mercedes and Co don't give a toss about the pilots, it's all about showing how great their engine is

Yup, thats why we have these awful turbo units with fuel consumption targets, play stations on wheels, when the car and set up are right the driver can do well, if it aint.. well look at vettel this season. When a 16 (now 17) year old can get a drive in an F1 team it show's how technology has changed the game. Senna was an extremely skilled / brave wet weather driver, would have liked to see him in a group B rally car!

slowmart

I wonder if some of the contributors on this thread actually voted? It's the equivalent of moaning about the present government if you fail to vote.

Given the "personalities" it was always going to be a vote between the golfer and driver and unsurprisingly F1 fans were always more diametrically conducive to be watching and inclined to vote. Golf is anally retentive, F1 is more so.

Dippydog3

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I am not saying Hamilton wasn't a deserving winner, but he was in a year of slim pickings... he wouldn't have made the final 10 in 2012. he won a championship battling essentially with only one opponent and never really showing dominance or flare. The opponent wasn't even irresistible.. he didn't beat Vettel, he beat Nico Rosberg, who up to last year was nothing more than a promising driver.
In essence, his win will not go down in the books as one of the greatest ever... it was a pretty boring championship, dominated by cars rather than drivers and Hamilton managed to edge his team mate... big deal! Alonso would have won, Vettel would have won, in fact half of the drivers on the grid would have won with Hamilton's car and the other half would have finished second behind Rosberg.

However, in a year where no Brit had the opportunity to excel (no olympics) and those who did were average (Froome) or worse (Murray, footballers), even Hamilton's championship stands out.

I was so agreeing with everything you said, right up to the bit at the end. McIlroy's achievement this year is so far ahead of Hamilton's that they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same conversation. I understand that many find golf boring, and that the voting public are a strange beast, so I really do not care who wins, but its a real shame that so few understand just how phenomenal his performance was this year.

He gets to use basically the same equipment as everyone else, not a car better than all the others. He has to compete for four days against about 70 guys who are all capable of winning, not a few hours against three or four real rivals.

And he won many of the biggest prizes in the game as an individual and a team member. And also won the equivalent of the world championship F1 by being Tour leader.

Just a completely different level.

ugo.santalucia

Dippydog3 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I am not saying Hamilton wasn't a deserving winner, but he was in a year of slim pickings... he wouldn't have made the final 10 in 2012. he won a championship battling essentially with only one opponent and never really showing dominance or flare. The opponent wasn't even irresistible.. he didn't beat Vettel, he beat Nico Rosberg, who up to last year was nothing more than a promising driver.
In essence, his win will not go down in the books as one of the greatest ever... it was a pretty boring championship, dominated by cars rather than drivers and Hamilton managed to edge his team mate... big deal! Alonso would have won, Vettel would have won, in fact half of the drivers on the grid would have won with Hamilton's car and the other half would have finished second behind Rosberg.

However, in a year where no Brit had the opportunity to excel (no olympics) and those who did were average (Froome) or worse (Murray, footballers), even Hamilton's championship stands out.

I was so agreeing with everything you said, right up to the bit at the end. McIlroy's achievement this year is so far ahead of Hamilton's that they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same conversation. I understand that many find golf boring, and that the voting public are a strange beast, so I really do not care who wins, but its a real shame that so few understand just how phenomenal his performance was this year.

He gets to use basically the same equipment as everyone else, not a car better than all the others. He has to compete for four days against about 70 guys who are all capable of winning, not a few hours against three or four real rivals.

And he won many of the biggest prizes in the game as an individual and a team member. And also won the equivalent of the world championship F1 by being Tour leader.

Just a completely different level.

I know zero about golf... he was the bookies favourite though... probably people were so uninterested that not many voted. With a small number of votes it's anyone's game. I guess F1 is a bit more popular, hence those who know nothing about golf didn't consider him, maybe?

tangled_metal

southdownswolf wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

However, in a year where no Brit had the opportunity to excel (no olympics) and those who did were average (Froome) or worse (Murray, footballers), even Hamilton's championship stands out.

I think this sums it up, not a great year for British sports.

Jo Pavey did well to win a gold at the Euro's, but to be honest, it was a pretty lack lustre field. Her winning time was 89 seconds slower than when she came 7th in the Olympics 2 years previous and 33 seconds slower than when she was 2nd in the Euro's that year.

But with her discipline being a distance event it's on the day that matters. Each race is.different. Perhaps it was slow but you get that with the more tactical races, too much checking what the contenders are doing slows the race down. Unless you get a front runner among the contenders of course. 33 seconds slower than her time in the last race you could say is equivalent to 0.33s in a 100m race. Just to put that into perspective, if you add 0.33s to the women's 100m record you get a time of 10.82s, the fastest time in the diamond league was 10.80s. Totally irrelevant considering different event types and dynamics plus the 33s is not the time on the 10k we but I'm just saying her event is about the position across the line. She'll never get the wr.

tangled_metal

McElroy is an amazing golfer. From his first appearance on the news as a kid you had a winner. He's not no1 for nothing. He won the most and won the best competitions. He beat the best on a level playing field so to speak. Why he didn't win I really don't know. I can only guess that Hamilton has a better career story behind him making him more sympathetic with the "floating voter". The people who can be bothered to vote but don't have a specific sport or specific sportsman/woman to vote for.
Also, TBH big noisy cars that crash or guys knocking a ball around. Jeez! If that was interesting I'd still prefer cricket.

southdownswolf

Tangled Metal wrote:

southdownswolf wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

However, in a year where no Brit had the opportunity to excel (no olympics) and those who did were average (Froome) or worse (Murray, footballers), even Hamilton's championship stands out.

I think this sums it up, not a great year for British sports.

Jo Pavey did well to win a gold at the Euro's, but to be honest, it was a pretty lack lustre field. Her winning time was 89 seconds slower than when she came 7th in the Olympics 2 years previous and 33 seconds slower than when she was 2nd in the Euro's that year.

But with her discipline being a distance event it's on the day that matters. Each race is.different. Perhaps it was slow but you get that with the more tactical races, too much checking what the contenders are doing slows the race down. Unless you get a front runner among the contenders of course. 33 seconds slower than her time in the last race you could say is equivalent to 0.33s in a 100m race. Just to put that into perspective, if you add 0.33s to the women's 100m record you get a time of 10.82s, the fastest time in the diamond league was 10.80s. Totally irrelevant considering different event types and dynamics plus the 33s is not the time on the 10k we but I'm just saying her event is about the position across the line. She'll never get the wr.

I think you're missing my point.... the others did it against the best in the World, Jo Pavey didn't. As a long distance runner (5k is a "sprint" for me) I can appreciate how good a runner she is, but she is nowhere near the best in the World. Had it been against a World class field, she probably would have done a better time, but she wouldn't have won the race. 2 years ago she ran 89 seconds quicker, but was still 23 seconds away from even getting a medal.

VTech

Some real good points above about time/class etc.

Best boxer in history was lennox lewis btw. The best fighter was tyson.

I wouldn't say lewis deserved the award even though I have followed him for years but I also couldn't really say anyone stood out for some of the reasons many others have posted.

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

Some real good points above about time/class etc.

Best boxer in history was lennox lewis btw. The best fighter was tyson.

I wouldn't say lewis deserved the award even though I have followed him for years but I also couldn't really say anyone stood out for some of the reasons many others have posted.

Lennox Lewis wouldn't even feature in the best 10 all time in his category... 'm afraid

Just to name a few heavy weight better than him; Joe Louis, Marciano, Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Tyson

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

VTech wrote:

Some real good points above about time/class etc.

Best boxer in history was lennox lewis btw. The best fighter was tyson.

I wouldn't say lewis deserved the award even though I have followed him for years but I also couldn't really say anyone stood out for some of the reasons many others have posted.

Lennox Lewis wouldn't even feature in the best 10 all time in his category... 'm afraid

Just to name a few heavy weight better than him; Joe Louis, Marciano, Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Tyson

Then you clearly know little about boxing.
I don't wish to be offensive but he is highly regarded as being one of the greatest boxers "BOXERS" in history.

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

Then you clearly know little about boxing.

That is possible... however it is more worrying that you know nothing about cycling and this is a cycling forum... which brings us back to the old argument...

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

VTech wrote:

Then you clearly know little about boxing.

That is possible... however it is more worrying that you know nothing about cycling and this is a cycling forum... which brings us back to the old argument...

I know a little about cycling. Not a lot, but a little.
Our carbon frames devision have sold over 300 units into the UK in the past 7 months and the feedback has been extroadinary with 2 TDF riders having tested them and said that they were amongst the best frames they have ridden.

You see, whilst people biatch and moan at me, I shrug it off and work. Thats why its Turkey, Ham and Beef this xmas.
Yes sir, its a 3 meat festival on the 25th for family VTech

finchy

Turkey, ham and beef - please tell me that's going to be a separate meal.

Are you manufacturing the frames? If so, what's the company?

Talking of Lennox Lewis, George Foreman had him down as the best heavyweight ever, but I find it's so hard to rank boxers from different ages. The boxers of today have far superior technique and fitness levels, but then the boxers of earlier times had to fight more often. I used to love lists of "all-time best...", but now I'm a bit older find them to be a bit pointless.

bigmat

I wouldn't necessarily say Lennox was the best heavyweight, but against anyone in history if they were to fight say 10 times, I'd back him to win more often than he lost. Maybe not Ali, but that's saying something.

RichN95.

Tangled Metal wrote:

But with her discipline being a distance event it's on the day that matters. Each race is.different. Perhaps it was slow but you get that with the more tactical races, too much checking what the contenders are doing slows the race down. Unless you get a front runner among the contenders of course. 33 seconds slower than her time in the last race you could say is equivalent to 0.33s in a 100m race. Just to put that into perspective, if you add 0.33s to the women's 100m record you get a time of 10.82s, the fastest time in the diamond league was 10.80s. Totally irrelevant considering different event types and dynamics plus the 33s is not the time on the 10k we but I'm just saying her event is about the position across the line. She'll never get the wr.

Here's the thing though. Hamilton and McIlroy are the best in the world at what they do. Pavey really isn't.

Her's is a nice story and she deserves recognition. But compare her one European gold to Mo Farah's haul - a direct like for like comparison. He's got ten Olympic, World or European Golds. Yet he's never been in the top three. Not even nominated this time.

And Hamilton may have the best car - but they don't hand cars out via sweepstake. The best drivers get the best cars. And he's won the title with two different teams - that's the mark of a true champion.

ugo.santalucia

Problem is if you look at Lewis career, he fought Tyson when he was the shadow of himself, he fought Holyfield when he was 37 and towards the end of his useful career...
He did beat Klischo (or whatever the name is), I give you that...

Among the other fights, no opponent really stands out... not his fault, it's just the name of the game

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Problem is if you look at Lewis career, he fought Tyson when he was the shadow of himself, he fought Holyfield when he was 37 and towards the end of his useful career...
He did beat Klischo (or whatever the name is), I give you that...

Among the other fights, no opponent really stands out... not his fault, it's just the name of the game

I don't think even Lenox would consider himself the best fighter, that title belongs to tyson without doubt, even with the modern methods of training and foods etc.

Lewis was the best boxer as he had a plan and stuck to it. He wanted to earn $500,000,000 revenue and retire.
He promptly earned $500,000,000 and retired.
He has not suffered the "ills" of boxing and has been offered $45,000,000 to come out of retirement to have a fight in Vegas and declined. He can possibly live out a long life and is healthy and loaded.
To me that makes him the best.

BTW, first thing he did after retirement is to give another £50,000,000 to the lennox lewis foundation for youth problems in the UK. I also think he was a rounded and thoroughly decent chap.

seanoconn

VTech wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Problem is if you look at Lewis career, he fought Tyson when he was the shadow of himself, he fought Holyfield when he was 37 and towards the end of his useful career...
He did beat Klischo (or whatever the name is), I give you that...

Among the other fights, no opponent really stands out... not his fault, it's just the name of the game

I don't think even Lenox would consider himself the best fighter, that title belongs to tyson without doubt, even with the modern methods of training and foods etc.

Lewis was the best boxer as he had a plan and stuck to it. He wanted to earn $500,000,000 revenue and retire.
He promptly earned $500,000,000 and retired.
He has not suffered the "ills" of boxing and has been offered $45,000,000 to come out of retirement to have a fight in Vegas and declined. He can possibly live out a long life and is healthy and loaded.
To me that makes him the best.

BTW, first thing he did after retirement is to give another £50,000,000 to the lennox lewis foundation for youth problems in the UK. I also think he was a rounded and thoroughly decent chap.

I have the utmost respect for Lewis as a fighter and a person, I liked him, I watched all his fights and willed him to win but I think most boxing fans would view the best fighter/ boxer as one and the same i:e who would win a bout between two fighters in their prime. Whether a boxer had a plan for retirement outside the ring doesn't come into it, I'll add that I admire Lewis for not being lured back for a big payday and risk his legacy.

I didn't like Tyson, I hoped he'd lose but in his prime he was the best, all action, bobbing and weaving, like Fraiser but faster, stronger and fitter. He had tremendous stamina for a knockout specialist and went a brutal ten rounds with Douglas with very little training and plenty of distractions.

Tyson in his prime would have knocked out any other fighter from any era, including Lewis. That's why he's the best boxer/fighter.

bompington

VTech wrote:

[He wanted to earn $500,000,000 revenue and retire.
He promptly earned $500,000,000 and retired.

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth ... net-worth/
Love to know where he spent the other $360 million

ballysmate

Agree with Sean 100% re Lennox.

But for a real heavyweight master class

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJUzl0aFHZw

bianchimoon

bompington wrote:

VTech wrote:

[He wanted to earn $500,000,000 revenue and retire.
He promptly earned $500,000,000 and retired.

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth ... net-worth/
Love to know where he spent the other $360 million

why he gave it to charity of course, don't ya know boxers are the most wonderful, caring, empathetic people on eath, how else do you think they find the motivation to go into a ring and go all out to maim another human being?

VTech

bianchimoon wrote:

bompington wrote:

VTech wrote:

[He wanted to earn $500,000,000 revenue and retire.
He promptly earned $500,000,000 and retired.

http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth ... net-worth/
Love to know where he spent the other $360 million

why he gave it to charity of course, don't ya know boxers are the most wonderful, caring, empathetic people on eath, how else do you think they find the motivation to go into a ring and go all out to maim another human being?

I love this forum for all that it is, thats why I keep coming back.
Plenty of daft people willing to try and poke fun and pick holes but sadly without the nounce to understand

Anyway, you will see I wrote REVENUE
He earnt revenue of $500,000,000, he also made far more than his fight purse would suggest because believe it or not, there is a thing called sponsorship and also PPV credits so even if he made a purse of $25,000,000 he would almost certainly earn a further 40-75% in revenues.
He also got paid a huge sum for some personal appearances and had earnings from related business.

Anyway, don't believe all you read about the rich lists, I had more money than 4 of the top 30 under 30's on the rich list in the UK and didn't get a mention. Mind you, that was 15 years ago, I've spent a little since then.

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

I know a little about cycling. Not a lot, but a little.
Our carbon frames devision have sold over 300 units into the UK in the past 7 months and the feedback has been extroadinary with 2 TDF riders having tested them and said that they were amongst the best frames they have ridden.

We could really value this expertise on here: we have welders and brazers, but no moulders. My advice is to spend more time in the workshop section, there is always people asking for advice about cracks, repairs and general carbon fibre queries...
It would be a lot more beneficial than wasting everybody's time with petty arguments about fast cars, wealth, how to become rich and whether tax avoidance is good or bad...

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

VTech wrote:

I know a little about cycling. Not a lot, but a little.
Our carbon frames devision have sold over 300 units into the UK in the past 7 months and the feedback has been extroadinary with 2 TDF riders having tested them and said that they were amongst the best frames they have ridden.

We could really value this expertise on here: we have welders and brazers, but no moulders. My advice is to spend more time in the workshop section, there is always people asking for advice about cracks, repairs and general carbon fibre queries...
It would be a lot more beneficial than wasting everybody's time with petty arguments about fast cars, wealth, how to become rich and whether tax avoidance is good or bad...

I have previously offered excellent advice only to have petty daftness thrown at me which is fine but goes against everything I am. Not because it upsets me, I can assure you that a forum tiff wouldn't enter my radar but because during my life I have soaked in knowledge (granted only that which has interested me) to my best ability and used that to achieve more. I can't understand why anyone would honestly not want to learn more and in fact achieve greater happiness from mocking.
I am not trying to be offensive with that statement, the above is truly from the heart.

Captain Slackbladder

BigMat wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily say Lennox was the best heavyweight, but against anyone in history if they were to fight say 10 times, I'd back him to win more often than he lost. Maybe not Ali, but that's saying something.

As you say, its doubtful he's the best but he'd make most peoples top 10 comfortably. Lots of experts have him in their top 5....

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

I have previously offered excellent advice only to have petty daftness thrown at me which is fine but goes against everything I am.

I can't recall the episode... lots of advice on cars and wealth, yes... on carbon frames I can't remember... :roll: