Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Sports, Hobbies & Interests => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on September 19, 2016, 07:19:12 PM
-
I don't generally vote but I will this year. Take a bow Mr Alistair Brownlee
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/triathlon/37402716
-
At the moment I would vote for one of the Paralympians. Problem is: which one!
-
At the moment I would vote for one of the Paralympians. Problem is: which one!
Why one of them?
-
Why one of them?
I suppose you could pick one, and vote for the Paralympic team as team of the year as well.
-
I suppose you could pick one, and vote for the Paralympic team as team of the year as well.
But I asked you why one of the Paralympic team as opposed to anyone else?
-
I had the same thought as BA, on seeing the thread title. Why? Probably because I have heard a number of disabled folk I know - of all ages - saying how the ParaGB team's performances have really inspired them to get out and do something. Whether they will is, of course, another matter - but the sheer fact of their thinking this way is a real inspiration to me - who ain't disabled, but also not able to do as much exercise as I used to, 'thanks to' the events of last October.
-
I had the same thought as BA, on seeing the thread title. Why? Probably because I have heard a number of disabled folk I know - of all ages - saying how the ParaGB team's performances have really inspired them to get out and do something. Whether they will is, of course, another matter - but the sheer fact of their thinking this way is a real inspiration to me - who ain't disabled, but also not able to do as much exercise as I used to, 'thanks to' the events of last October.
Surely this estimates such performances because they are successful and differently abled?
-
But I asked you why one of the Paralympic team as opposed to anyone else?
There's no need to make an issue of it.. If you want, you can vote for someone because they look good! I would vote for a Paralympian because they have to overcome so many obstacles to reach the level they have, and that takes enormous will and application.
-
There's no need to make an issue of it.. If you want, you can vote for someone because they look good! I would vote for a Paralympian because they have to overcome so many obstacles to reach the level they have, and that takes enormous will and application.
You need to realise that asking 'why' you do something is not 'making an issue', or challenging your right to vote for who you want to. As to your reason, I think there is something patronising about the attitude that we should look on paralympians as doing anything different from any other athletes or sportspeople. I look at Alistair Brownlee and Sarah Storey as doing the sane thing. It feels to me you don't.
-
You need to realise that asking 'why' you do something is not 'making an issue', or challenging your right to vote for who you want to. As to your reason, I think there is something patronising about the attitude that we should look on paralympians as doing anything different from any other athletes or sportspeople. I look at Alistair Brownlee and Sarah Storey as doing the sane thing. It feels to me you don't.
I shall look to the Paralympics to decide who to vote for: end of.
-
I shall look to the Paralympics to decide who to vote for: end of.
You certainly have a wealth of candidates to choose from
-
I look at Alistair Brownlee and Sarah Storey as doing the sane thing. It feels to me you don't.
That suggests that any two sportspeople ought to be seen as 'doing the same thing', NS?
-
That suggests that any two sportspeople ought to be seen as 'doing the same thing', NS?
More or less, do you think Sarah Storey does something different to Alistair Brownlee? Are you saying to her that she should be evaluated differently from him?
-
More or less, do you think Sarah Storey does something different to Alistair Brownlee? Are you saying to her that she should be evaluated differently from him?
No, I'm trying to point out that - if we follow your way of thinking - there can't be a 'Sports Personality of the Year' as they're all the same as as each other.
-
No, I'm trying to point out that - if we follow your way of thinking - there can't be a 'Sports Personality of the Year' as they're all the same as as each other.
Saying people should be evaluated in the same way does not say they are the same as each other
-
Saying people should be evaluated in the same way does not say they are the same as each other
Yet when BA and I suggested that one or more paralympian ought to get the SPOTY award this year, you seemed to suggest that they didn't have the same cachet as some other sports personality. You can't have it both ways.
-
Yet when BA and I suggested that one or more paralympian ought to get the SPOTY award this year, you seemed to suggest that they didn't have the same cachet as some other sports personality. You can't have it both ways.
No, I said they had precisely the same cachet. Read the posts.
-
No, I said they had precisely the same cachet. Read the posts.
Hence my point that the SPOTY idea must be impossible
-
I suppose you could pick one, and vote for the Paralympic team as team of the year as well.
Why the Paralympic team rather than the Olympic team.
Surely the Olympic team coming second, which it hasn't done in modern times, is more impressive that the Paralympic team's second which simply matches the result in 2000, 2004 and 2008. And don't forget that there are some countries that haven't really embraced the Paralympian concept (step forward USA) so the competition is less intense than for the Olympics where pretty well all countries participate fully. Also, of course Russia was completely banned from the Paralympics, which was not the case for the Olympics, further reducing the competitiveness of the games.
So to my mind the Olympic team success was better than the Paralympic team. Of course you can try to elevate the Paralympian success simply because they are disabled, rather than on an objective assessment of the sporting performance, but isn't that exactly what the Paralympic movement is trying to combat as an attitude.
-
Why the Paralympic team rather than the Olympic team.
Surely the Olympic team coming second, which it hasn't done in modern times, is more impressive that the Paralympic team's second which simply matches the result in 2000, 2004 and 2008. And don't forget that there are some countries that haven't really embraced the Paralympian concept (step forward USA) so the competition is less intense than for the Olympics where pretty well all countries participate fully. Also, of course Russia was completely banned from the Paralympics, which was not the case for the Olympics, further reducing the competitiveness of the games.
So to my mind the Olympic team success was better than the Paralympic team. Of course you can try to elevate the Paralympian success simply because they are disabled, rather than on an objective assessment of the sporting performance, but isn't that exactly what the Paralympic movement is trying to combat as an attitude.
Of course you have a point, and it can become invidious to choose any particular athlete over another. I quite agree: the Olympic team were outstanding; but whatever your stance on their disabilities, and whatever they may think of public attitudes, some of the performances were superb, accomplished often after barely believable difficulties. That surely deserves the highest accolade. I would vote for them all, but we have to choose one. Perhaps we could vote for the Olympic teams, both, for team of the year.
-
And don't forget that there are some countries that haven't really embraced the Paralympian concept (step forward USA) so the competition is less intense than for the Olympics where pretty well all countries participate fully. Also, of course Russia was completely banned from the Paralympics, which was not the case for the Olympics, further reducing the competitiveness of the games.
I haven't sat down and done a comparison of acheivement based on world records, as opposed to medal colour, but I have the impression that more world and Olympic records were set by British athletes in the Paralympics than in the Olympics.
-
I haven't sat down and done a comparison of acheivement based on world records, as opposed to medal colour, but I have the impression that more world and Olympic records were set by British athletes in the Paralympics than in the Olympics.
That would probably be true but there are reasons why that isn't necessarily that impressive.
Firstly, there are many more medals available in the Paralympics per discipline. There necessarily have to be different competitions for different types and levels of disability.
Secondly, a Paralympian is competing against a much smaller pool of competitors than an Olympian. Laura Trott has risen to the top of a pool of competitors that includes every single female competition cyclist in the World. Sarah Storey won a Gold medal in the C5 category this time around which most of the World's female cyclists are excluded from because they are not disabled and many of the rest are too severely disabled to provide serious competition in C5.
Thirdly, support for disability sport in the UK is very strong. This is not necessarily the case for countries that "take away" medals from the UK in the Olympics. Where was the USA, for example? In fourth place.
-
I'm in full agreement with your analysis, jeremy. Therein lies the rub, there is is such a fine line between just about every successful athlete, whatever their discipline.
-
That would probably be true but there are reasons why that isn't necessarily that impressive.
Firstly, there are many more medals available in the Paralympics per discipline. There necessarily have to be different competitions for different types and levels of disability.
Secondly, a Paralympian is competing against a much smaller pool of competitors than an Olympian. Laura Trott has risen to the top of a pool of competitors that includes every single female competition cyclist in the World. Sarah Storey won a Gold medal in the C5 category this time around which most of the World's female cyclists are excluded from because they are not disabled and many of the rest are too severely disabled to provide serious competition in C5.
Thirdly, support for disability sport in the UK is very strong. This is not necessarily the case for countries that "take away" medals from the UK in the Olympics. Where was the USA, for example? In fourth place.
That's right.
And when there is a small pool of competitors and the sports are developing fast, expect there to be loads of records broken. That is often the sign that the competition isn't that great. I am in no way denigrating the paralympians, but their achievement, as a team, to my mind (and I believe objectively) doesn't stack up to the Olympians who achieved something that a British Olympic team hasn't done ever - finished second away from home. Actually the only time Britain has finished higher was in 1908 when they topped the table, but that doesn't really count as it wasn't really a properly global competition and routinely the hosts (however small) ended up at the top or almost top.
-
It surely should be Sam Allardyce with his 100% record.
-
Claudia Fragapane, Ellie Simmonds, Tom Daley stand out amongst my favourites.
-
Claudia Fragapane, Ellie Simmonds, Tom Daley stand out amongst my favourites.
Tom Daley - for his signal failure throughout the event? ;)
-
Tom Daley - for his signal failure throughout the event? ;)
No silly, for his Speedos! :-[
-
And so we have a list of 16 but no Chris Froome, no Carl Frampton, no Charlotte Dujardin amongst other, thoughts?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/38128822
-
And so we have a list of 16 but no Chris Froome, no Carl Frampton, no Charlotte Dujardin amongst other, thoughts?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/sports-personality/38128822
Laura Trott is missing too.
Of that bunch, I'd go with Andy Murray
-
Laura Trott is missing too.
Of that bunch, I'd go with Andy Murray
And yet, no she isn't, just married
-
And yet, no she isn't, just married
Oh yes, my mistake. I was also going to complain about her husband being missing but he's there too. I therefore revise my choice, one of the Kenneys
-
Oh yes, my mistake. I was also going to complain about her husband being missing but he's there too. I therefore revise my choice, one of the Kenneys
For this year I would vote Alistair Brownlee as noted before but leaving aside that Murray. Just think it odd that we get Vardy not Froome. And Frampton missed!
-
Good to see that the annual ' but it says 'personality' ' comments are out in force this year.
-
Yep. Everyone has a personality. It might not be the personality you want to see - or even the personality of a sheet of cardboard, but, hey, it's a personality. Murry delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times - and deserved the honour - again. Miind you, I'd have liked a Brownlee to have scooped the prize.
-
Yep. Everyone has a personality. It might not be the personality you want to see - or even the personality of a sheet of cardboard, but, hey, it's a personality. Murry delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times - and deserved the honour - again. Miind you, I'd have liked a Brownlee to have scooped the prize.
Agree that Murray is a worthy winner.
Disagree that he has 'delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times'.
-
Agree that Murray is a worthy winner.
Disagree that he has 'delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times'.
Just asking:
Do you disagree that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times
or
Do you disagree that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for their particular sport in modern times?
Or is it both?
-
Just asking:
Do you disagree that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times
or
Do you disagree that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for their particular sport in modern times?
Or is it both?
I read it as the second option.
So I don't think that Andy Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for their particular sport in modern times.
I think that without doubt he has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times. But that isn't saying a lot as Brits have been useless at tennis for years. Murray is genuinely world class and has finally risen to number one in the rankings, and has current been there for a few weeks. But there are plenty of other Brits who have been global number one in their sports over extended period, hence my disagreement with the statement in its second form.
-
I read it as the second option.
Maybe Anchorman can tell us which version he was using?
-
I'd like to know what he means by "delivered more". More trophies? More money? More interest? More participants?
-
I read it as the second option.
So I don't think that Andy Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for their particular sport in modern times.
I think that without doubt he has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times. But that isn't saying a lot as Brits have been useless at tennis for years. Murray is genuinely world class and has finally risen to number one in the rankings, and has current been there for a few weeks. But there are plenty of other Brits who have been global number one in their sports over extended period, hence my disagreement with the statement in its second form.
And I think I agree with you, Prof.
-
I read it as the second option.
So I don't think that Andy Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for their particular sport in modern times.
I think that without doubt he has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times. But that isn't saying a lot as Brits have been useless at tennis for years. Murray is genuinely world class and has finally risen to number one in the rankings, and has current been there for a few weeks. But there are plenty of other Brits who have been global number one in their sports over extended period, hence my disagreement with the statement in its second form.
As an alternative it could be argued that Murray has done more in terms of changing our expectations in his sport than anyone else. Arguably Bradley Wiggins in that first TdF win, or Mo Farah in his competition wins in long dustance running, did but most other successful sports people did so in sports where British expectations were already quite high. Even with Wiggins and Farah, if we take cycling and athletics as the equivalent to tennis, it can be argued that it was in the tradition of a successful British participation.
Murray's wins at a male Grand Slam tournament, Wimbledon men's, and the significant driver in winning the Davis Cup, all for the first time in over 70 years , and becoming the first British male to be ranked No 3, 2, 1 in the Open era is a step change from what was achieved previously.
-
As an alternative it could be argued that Murray has done more in terms of changing our expectations in his sport than anyone else. Arguably Bradley Wiggins in that first TdF win, or Mo Farah in his competition wins in long dustance running, did but most other successful sports people did so in sports where British expectations were already quite high. Even with Wiggins and Farah, if we take cycling and athletics as the equivalent to tennis, it can be argued that it was in the tradition of a successful British participation.
Murray's wins at a male Grand Slam tournament, Wimbledon men's, and the significant driver in winning the Davis Cup, all for the first time in over 70 years , and becoming the first British male to be ranked No 3, 2, 1 in the Open era is a step change from what was achieved previously.
But that is really a different way of saying that:
Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times
The point being that Murray's achievements are context specific - in other words in the context of a sport where Brits have done really poorly. But had Brits done fantastically at tennis over the decades, then his achievements would be fine, but nothing out of the ordinary. And I'm struggling with the notion of Murray somehow as the greatest British sportsperson of recent times when, arguably over the period of his tennis career he is probably only the 4th best (with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic ahead of him).
To my mind to be really great you need to be great regardless of context, so the best in the world over an extended period of time in your sport. So using that way of thinking then Wiggins has a claim, as does Hoy (in differing disciplines world beating in cycling over a number of years), also Redgrave and perhaps Farah.
So I don't think you can be the greatest just by changing our expectations, you are the greatest because you are the very best, regardless of expectations.
-
But that is really a different way of saying that:
Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times
The point being that Murray's achievements are context specific - in other words in the context of a sport where Brits have done really poorly. But had Brits done fantastically at tennis over the decades, then his achievements would be fine, but nothing out of the ordinary. And I'm struggling with the notion of Murray somehow as the greatest British sportsperson of recent times when, arguably over the period of his tennis career he is probably only the 4th best (with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic ahead of him).
To my mind to be really great you need to be great regardless of context, so the best in the world over an extended period of time in your sport. So using that way of thinking then Wiggins has a claim, as does Hoy (in differing disciplines world beating in cycling over a number of years), also Redgrave and perhaps Farah.
So I don't think you can be the greatest just by changing our expectations, you are the greatest because you are the very best, regardless of expectations.
Why are you changing the point of discussion here from the question of what might be meant by 'delivered more for his sport in modern times' to the question of the greatest ever? These seem not the same statement. Further given the use of 'his sport' in Anchorman's post, there us obviously a question of specificity. I suggest that if you want to continue the greatest ever question you could do that on the pre existing thread for that rather than getting yourself and, possibly, others confused here.
-
Why are you changing the point of discussion here from the question of what might be meant by 'delivered more for his sport in modern times' to the question of the greatest ever? These seem not the same statement. Further given the use of 'his sport' in Anchorman's post, there us obviously a question of specificity. I suggest that if you want to continue the greatest ever question you could do that on the pre existing thread for that rather than getting yourself and, possibly, others confused here.
Well I think that to have 'delivered more for his sport in modern times' than any other Brit then I would think it reasonable to expect that person to be the very best. The question wasn't about delivering the most for British tennis' but about delivering the most for tennis, so the reach of their impact must surely have to go way beyond british tennis, but global tennis. And sure Murray is currently number one, but his impact is largely british, rather than global on the basis that he isn't even the stand out alone player of his generation.
None of this is in any way dismissing his achievements, they are stunning, merely point out that so have other tennis players in the past few years. By contrast I think it would be hard for global cycling to look much further than the achievements of the likes of Hoy, or Wiggins, or global long distance athletics to look beyond Farah.
-
Well I think that to have 'delivered more for his sport in modern times' than any other Brit then I would think it reasonable to expect that person to be the very best. The question wasn't about delivering the most for British tennis' but about delivering the most for tennis, so the reach of their impact must surely have to go way beyond british tennis, but global tennis. And sure Murray is currently number one, but his impact is largely british, rather than global on the basis that he isn't even the stand out alone player of his generation.
None of this is in any way dismissing his achievements, they are stunning, merely point out that so have other tennis players in the past few years. By contrast I think it would be hard for global cycling to look much further than the achievements of the likes of Hoy, or Wiggins, or global long distance athletics to look beyond Farah.
I would suspect if someone wanted to say the 'greatest ever British sportsman' and not look on it as somehow specific to a sport they wouldn't use 'his sport' or delivered but then I was merely making a case for what Anchorman might mean, not saying it is what they mean as you have decided to do.
Given that there is a preexisting thread on the greatest sportsman for Britain, I'll not derail this thread further with more discussion of that here.
-
I would suspect if someone wanted to say the 'greatest ever British sportsman' and not look on it as somehow specific to a sport they wouldn't use 'his sport' or delivered but then I was merely making a case for what Anchorman might mean, not saying it is what they mean as you have decided to do.
Given that there is a preexisting thread on the greatest sportsman for Britain, I'll not derail this thread further with more discussion of that here.
Sure but surely 'his sport' should have a global context, not just a parochial British context. Sure the people we are talking about are all Brits, but their impact surely should be global for them to have 'delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times', which was the quote we are talking about.
-
Sure but surely 'his sport' should have a global context, not just a parochial British context. Sure the people we are talking about are all Brits, but their impact surely should be global for them to have 'delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times', which was the quote we are talking about.
except we are on a thread about the Sports Personality of the Year, and Murray was awarded it as the British SPotY!
-
except we are on a thread about the Sports Personality of the Year, and Murray was awarded it as the British SPotY!
Indeed, but this little 'sub discussion' was about Anchorman's claim that:
'Murry delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times ...'
-
Indeed, but this little 'sub discussion' was about Anchorman's claim that:
'Murry delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times ...'
which is in the context of the thread, and says Brit. So it is in a British context. It doesn't seem to relate to the greatest British sportsman ever, nor to the Brit who has done more for their sport in a world context, whatever that might mean.
-
which is in the context of the thread, and says Brit. So it is in a British context. It doesn't seem to relate to the greatest British sportsman ever, nor to the Brit who has done more for their sport in a world context, whatever that might mean.
Obviously we'll have to ask what Anchorman meant by his comment.
But I certainly read it as indicting the British-ness of the context merely to be the nationality of the sportsperson, rather than the limit of their impact to just British sport.
Indeed I think every one of the contenders for SPOTY was selected due to their impact on global sport and that they are British by nationality. The majority were on the shortlist due to impressive gold medal winning performances at the Rio Olympics/Paralympics, which last time I looked was a global sporting event.
-
Obviously we'll have to ask what Anchorman meant by his comment.
But I certainly read it as indicting the British-ness of the context merely to be the nationality of the sportsperson, rather than the limit of their impact to just British sport.
Indeed I think every one of the contenders for SPOTY was selected due to their impact on global sport and that they are British by nationality. The majority were on the shortlist due to impressive gold medal winning performances at the Rio Olympics/Paralympics, which last time I looked was a global sporting event.
Where is the inducting of the Britishness of it in the post? Especially one that refers to a 'Brit'! That appears to not make any sense.
Given that I'm struggling to see why you then go off on some oddity that these might not be about global sporting events. That would imply that you think that you can only effect British sporting expectation in a non global event, which is clearly nonsense.
-
Where is the inducting of the Britishness of it in the post? Especially one that refers to a 'Brit'! That appears to not make any sense.
Indeed he claimed that:
'Murry delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times ...'
Which I took to being only about the nationality of the sportsperson (which is relevant to SPOTY, as it is restricted to Brits only - or at least the main prize is).
Given that I'm struggling to see why you then go off on some oddity that these might not be about global sporting events. That would imply that you think that you can only effect British sporting expectation in a non global event, which is clearly nonsense.
I agree - hence focussing on the global impact of a sportsperson, with the proviso that they are British by nationality.
Not sure we are really disagreeing.
The point I was making (originally) was that if Anchorman's comment means (to use enki's terminology, with slight modification):
'Do you [agree] that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for their particular sport in modern times?' - then my answer would be no.
On the other hand if the question is:
'Do you [agree] that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times?' - then my answer would be absolutely yes.
-
Indeed he claimed that:
'Murry delivered more for his sport than any other brit in modern times ...'
Which I took to being only about the nationality of the sportsperson (which is relevant to SPOTY, as it is restricted to Brits only - or at least the main prize is).
I agree - hence focussing on the global impact of a sportsperson, with the proviso that they are British by nationality.
Not sure we are really disagreeing.
The point I was making (originally) was that if Anchorman's comment means (to use enki's terminology, with slight modification):
'Do you [agree] that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for their particular sport in modern times?' - then my answer would be no.
On the other hand if the question is:
'Do you [agree] that Murray has delivered more for his sport(which is tennis) than any other brit has for tennis in modern times?' - then my answer would be absolutely yes.
Which is why I suggested an alternative reading which is for their particular sport as a Brit, and outlined why.
-
OK - a bit of a challenge - in more than one sense.
If there was a Sports Family of the Year award, who would you have voted for?
-
OK - a bit of a challenge - in more than one sense.
If there was a Sports Family of the Year award, who would you have voted for?
First place - the Kennys
Second place - the Brownlees
Third place - the Murrays
Sure I know the first one is a bit of a cheat, being husband and wife.
-
Sure I know the first one is a bit of a cheat, being husband and wife.
My question would be 'Were they 'family' at the time of their achievements?'
-
My question would be 'Were they 'family' at the time of their achievements?'
Depends what you define as family.
I'd argue yes in Rio, no in London.
But I fully accepted it was a bit of a cheat.