Is Katie Taylor Ireland best athlete

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Glad you beat me to this. I thought it was off the charts illogical too. I play golf, albeit very ordinarily, I guess I am included in the pool here in Ireland.

I'm sure Harrington is craapping himself!!

Dan_Solo

If a sport has more participants at any level then it is likely to be harder to get to the top. There's are plenty of boxers/MMAs who turn up for training and do their bit but have no interest in killing themselves to get to a competitive level.
And good luck to them too BTW.
But to say some sports have lots of "weekend warriors" who's heart isn't really in it and therefore don't count as part of the competitive pool is disingenuous. There has to be some link between participation number and hardcore element.
All this really means is that the top of 60kg women's boxing is probably less likely to be the GOAT, but there's no way of proving it. If every 60kg woman on earth boxed then we'd know. Otherwise, she might or might not be. We can be more certain with footballers and rugby players is all, but not definite.
As usual, it's just another excuse for a good aul chin wag and not something that can be proven.:)

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm sure Harrington is craapping himself!!

I was registered as a player with the FAI for a few years. I was waiting for that "King Ralph" moment when the 20,000 Irish footballers above me in the pecking order has some bizarre collective mishap...:D

cowzerp

With footballers it's much more selective-Keane who was used here had a good engine and done the basics right-he had little skill and many talk about him as 1 of the best at the time, in boxing it's 1 on 1 so teammates don't make a difference to results, Keane could have an off day and still win, a boxer has off day and it's game over.

Saying certain sports have weekend warriors is not disengenios, I train lots of girls to box and they don't get counted on the list with Katie Taylor-they would not qualify to fight her as its not like a marathon where anyone can do it-some owl lad playing golf for the fun has no bearing on how good tiger woods is.

makl

Magill wrote: »

So running marathons is easy to do ? Im sorry... but what planet do you live on ? Maybe if you weigh 7 stone and have an 9ft stride.

I never said that. (But they are, I just didn't say that at first. Look at the calibre of athlete who completes a marathon. It just takes a few months dedication. And if you get tired after a while, walk. A sub 3 - now that it is difficult. By the way, a 9 foot stride would make it more difficult.[/B]

Magill wrote: »

Same can be said with boxing, anyone can throw a punch and take a hit, throw in the towel... i've done it (Not the throwing in the towel part), fat/skinning/small/tall/weak/strong kids i knew growing up have done it. Katie isn't exactly fighting "Wars" like some professionals. Its amateur Boxing, amateur Rugby is rougher and more intense than amateur boxing fs.

you are wrong on all accounts here. you come across as not understanding amateur boxing. you come across as if you haven't seen many of Katie's fights. rugby may be rougher, but it ain't more intense. Also, Amateur v pro rugby is not the same as amateur v pro golf.

Magill wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many fun "Golfers" take part in tournaments and such. Yes most of them are not professionals, but that is only because the level at which you have to be to be a professional in sports like golf/football is so high. Like any sport you have to be the best of the best to be considered elite (Like Katie is). There are probably as many people boxing as there are playing golf, but there are just so many divisions in boxing that unlike golf, there is never a number 1 ranked person in the world overall. Katie is the best, in a very small subgroup (60kg) of an slightly bigger subgroup (female boxing). Compared to Rory mac who is ranked 2nd in his sport, with no subgroups or divisions separating him from other elite players (Even women have competed in the mens golf tournaments iirc).

Fine re your numbers. I still don't agree how bits in bold would make mcilroy more elite than katie.

Magill wrote: »

My argument about the level of competition has nothing to do with who can be considered elite... like I've said previously, Elite sportsmen and women are those that are at the highest level of their field, Rory Mac is an elite golfer... Katie Taylor is an elite women's boxer, Roy Keane was an elite football player. Its quite simple really. The argument about the level of competition is just an indication of how difficult and rare it is to be the best at that sport, if you can't grasp that concept then don't reply to me because i'd be wasting my time talking to you.

I know you think they are all elite. You just think some are more elite because their level of competition is deeper/greater. That's where your mistake lies. If you go that route, then soccer players, the most played sport at all levels, are the most elite. And that's nonsense.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

Saying certain sports have weekend warriors is not disengenios, I train lots of girls to box and they don't get counted on the list with Katie Taylor-they would not qualify to fight her as its not like a marathon where anyone can do it-some owl lad playing golf for the fun has no bearing on how good tiger woods is.

But it is disingenuous when the claim is that some sports have less committed participants and so can be discounted from the competitive pool when even you yourself have backed up that this happens in every sport.
What's so special about fat golfers or half-assed 5 a siders then that they should not be counted the same as non-competitive boxers?

titan18

Whilst I think Taylor ain't Ireland's best athlete ever, I think to say a golfer is, is rather stupid. I'm not sure I'd count them as athletes tbh.

Likewise, whilst I think Keane is being underrated here by some, cos of the lack of skill or whatever, even though he dominated players and opposing midfields at this peak, I don't think I'd give it to him.

Imo, it's Sean Kelly. He held the no 1 spot in cycling for six years and they had to change the ranking system otherwise, he'd have held it for years after retiring. The amount of races he won is incredible, and he was an excellent all-round cyclist, could sprint with the best sprinters, climb with the best climbers, descended like a demon and could ride in any weather. Considering cycling can often be quite specialised, it's rare to get a cyclist who can do it over multiple disciplines as well as Kelly did

walshb

titan18 wrote: »

Whilst I think Taylor ain't Ireland's best athlete ever, I think to say a golfer is, is rather stupid. I'm not sure I'd count them as athletes tbh.

Likewise, whilst I think Keane is being underrated here by some, cos of the lack of skill or whatever, even though he dominated players and opposing midfields at this peak, I don't think I'd give it to him.

Imo, it's Sean Kelly. He held the no 1 spot in cycling for six years and they had to change the ranking system otherwise, he'd have held it for years after retiring. The amount of races he won is incredible, and he was an excellent all-round cyclist, could sprint with the best sprinters, climb with the best climbers, descended like a demon and could ride in any weather. Considering cycling can often be quite specialised, it's rare to get a cyclist who can do it over multiple disciplines as well as Kelly did

Kelly to me is an excellent choice. I am the same as regards golfers.

Simple: Being an athlete could help your golf game, but being an athlete is not a necessity to play golf at the highest level. It's a game of poise, handling, technique, concentration, and natural talent with a swinging club. An athlete, or an athletic sport is not golf, at least not a good example.

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But it is disingenuous when the claim is that some sports have less committed participants and so can be discounted from the competitive pool when even you yourself have backed up that this happens in every sport.
What's so special about fat golfers or half-assed 5 a siders then that they should not be counted the same as non-competitive boxers?

No you missed my point, the golfers that are not competitive are been counted and my girls are not, nor should they be-they have no relevance to Katie or how she does, just like a Irish league footballer would have zero bearing on Roy Keane, they simply do the same sport.

My point is my girls Are not counted as the golfers doing it non competitive should not be either.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

No you missed my point, the golfers that are not competitive are been counted and my girls are not, nor should they be-they have no relevance to Katie or how she does, just like a Irish league footballer would have zero bearing on Roy Keane, they simply do the same sport.

My point is my girls Are not counted as the golfers doing it non competitive should not be either.

OK, but do you not think there is an intrinsic link between "non-competitive" and "competitive" participants in every sport? Maybe <1% or something of both people who plat football regularly and people who box regularly?

cowzerp

At elite level only the other elites matter-the rest especially non competitors don't matter.

Golf is full of people who play but would have no intention of competing, I just don't get why hobbyist should count.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

At elite level only the other elites matter-the rest especially non competitors don't matter.

Golf is full of people who play but would have no intention of competing, I just don't get why hobbyist should count.

BTW, golf is one game where a very average player in terms of wins and ranking can win a major. It's why I never gamble on the game. Anyone has a good stab at winning. Unlike say tennis or boxing or soccer, the usual elite lads and teams mostly win.

So, in that sense golf at pro level is very very competitive as anyone can win, but conversely, it means that the not so good or consistent guys can win too, so in that sense, how competitive is it really?

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

At elite level only the other elites matter-the rest especially non competitors don't matter.

Golf is full of people who play but would have no intention of competing, I just don't get why hobbyist should count.

So how would you define what the competitive pool is then? Especially for an amateur sport?
Like I said, I don't think it can prove anything, but being the best out of 100,000 is likely to mean a better athlete than being the best out of 10,000 on statistics alone.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So how would you define what the competitive pool is then? Especially for an amateur sport?
Like I said, I don't think it can prove anything, but being the best out of 100,000 is likely to mean a better athlete than being the best out of 10,000 on statistics alone.

I agree, it is likely, but in the case of say golf and boxing, or running and boxing, I would argue that a top boxer is a better athlete anyway. Golfers aren't athletes.

titan18

cowzerp wrote: »

At elite level only the other elites matter-the rest especially non competitors don't matter.

Golf is full of people who play but would have no intention of competing, I just don't get why hobbyist should count.

I think the point he's making is that due to women's boxing being a rather low popularity sport, there could be a better boxer than Taylor out there. Whereas something like soccer, there's pretty much no chance there's someone out there better than Messi/Ronaldo etc (at a similar age) as there'd be very few who've not played the game.

Golf is probably a bad example to make of it though, since it's a bit expensive to play

walshb

titan18 wrote: »

I think the point he's making is that due to women's boxing being a rather low popularity sport, there could be a better boxer than Taylor out there.

If that is his point then it's really clutching! Coulda woulda shoulda logic!

titan18

walshb wrote: »

If that is his point then it's really clutching! Coulda woulda shoulda logic!

It's a fair point imo. I'd rather someone who's proven themselves against the world's best and knowing that those best were the best on talent and not on there being no one else

Magill

makl wrote: »

I never said that. (But they are, I just didn't say that at first. Look at the calibre of athlete who completes a marathon. It just takes a few months dedication. And if you get tired after a while, walk. A sub 3 - now that it is difficult. By the way, a 9 foot stride would make it more difficult.[/B]

Like i said, its easy to compete in boxing as well.. yes you'll get beat up sometimes, but to compete it does not require any more than a marathon runner... in fact.. i'd have to say running a marathon requires much more than simply competiting in boxing. For someone that is out of shape can still box, they probably couldn't complete a marathon.

you are wrong on all accounts here. you come across as not understanding amateur boxing. you come across as if you haven't seen many of Katie's fights. rugby may be rougher, but it ain't more intense. Also, Amateur v pro rugby is not the same as amateur v pro golf.

I understand it fine, it is a very skilled sport, no doubt about it. Lots of hard training and lots of skill. But its certainly not this ridiculously hard sport that only some people are capable of competing in, as you made it out to be.

Fine re your numbers. I still don't agree how bits in bold would make mcilroy more elite than Katie.

Elite sounds a bit pretentious, but put it whatever you want... to be where Rory is at in his career, is a more rare than to be where Katie is (In that, there are more competitive golfers than there are boxers in Katie's Division). Comparing them directly as athletes is pointless as both have a completely different set of tools and talents.

I know you think they are all elite. You just think some are more elite because their level of competition is deeper/greater. That's where your mistake lies. If you go that route, then soccer players, the most played sport at all levels, are the most elite. And that's nonsense.

Well they are... to be the BEST player (Messi/Ronaldo/Pele/Maradona etc) in the world, it is that much harder in soccer as it would be in other less popular and less competitive sports, i mean... its not even up for debate, its facts and numbers. Soccer is by FAR the most competitive sport in the world, even people who only play for pub teams train 1 or 2 nights a week aswel as a match every weekend.




BTW comparing these athletes is completely stupid to begin with... why was it even brought up.... Katie Taylor is the best woman boxer this country has ever produced (Correct me if im wrong)... isn't that enough ?

cowzerp

Magill wrote: »

Like i said, its easy to compete in boxing as well.. yes you'll get beat up sometimes, but to compete it does not require any more than a marathon runner... in fact.. i'd have to say running a marathon requires much more than simply competiting in boxing. For someone that is out of shape can still box, they probably couldn't complete a marathon

A proper Boxer could easily do the marathon without ever training for it, a marathon runner would be bollixed after a real round of boxing, and stopped badly if in with a good boxer. You my friend are clueless

Dan_Solo

walshb wrote: »

If that is his point then it's really clutching! Coulda woulda shoulda logic!

What? Care to back that up instead of just saying I'm wrong? Can't explain won't explain?

walshb

titan18 wrote: »

It's a fair point imo. I'd rather someone who's proven themselves against the world's best and knowing that those best were the best on talent and not on there being no one else

But it's been said many times now, the comp is there, and has been for a few years now. The sport is global, when will that sink in? I know it will never be as participatory as some other sports, but that applies to men and women across several different sports. If Katie's records doesn't show how good she is and if the people she beat from all over the world don't say it, what will?

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

A proper Boxer could easily do the marathon without ever training for it, a marathon runner would be bollixed after a real round of boxing, and stopped badly if in with a good boxer. You my friend are clueless

But he wouldn't be an elite marathoner. So you're back where you started. A golfer could cover 26 miles but he wouldn't be competitive, would he?

Dan_Solo

walshb wrote: »

But it's been said many times now, the comp is there, and has been for a few years now. The sport is global, when will that sink in? I know it will never be as participatory as some other sports, but that applies to men and women across several different sports. If Katie's records doesn't show how good she is and if the people she beat from all over the world don't say it, what will?

You're still not getting it. It's more likely for you to be the best at something if 10 people do it than if 100 people do it.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You're still not getting it. It's more likely for you to be the best at something if 10 people do it than if 100 people do it.

I get that well. So, I guess then using that logic boxers can't be considerd, nor can any sports that have not got the particpation level of what?, soccer, golf, running? Do you think this? Just asking.

Like it's been said, elite for elite should be used, and in this instance, I think Katie can be considered.

Dan_Solo

Magill wrote: »

I understand it fine, it is a very skilled sport, no doubt about it. Lots of hard training and lots of skill. But its certainly not this ridiculously hard sport that only some people are capable of competing in, as you made it out to be.

Why not? You could say the same about any sport. If it's so easy why don't you invest in a few irons and win a few tournaments? Millions to be made and it's "not this ridiculously hard sport" apparently.

Yourwellcum

TBH all this thread has shown is a natural bias towards peoples own sports or sports they are more interested in.

You cant compare competitors from different sports in the way people want to. There are too many factors to consider.

Katie is one of the greats for sure, but how do you say she is better than someone like Sonia O'Sullivan, Sean Kelly, Harrington etc. Its far too subjective to hold water as a legitimate argument.

Dan_Solo

walshb wrote: »

I get that well. So, I guess then using that logic boxers can't be considerd, nor can any sports that have not got the particpation level of what?, soccer, golf, running? Do you think this? Just asking.

No, I very very specifically said this is not true and it cannot be proven either way. All it means is that it is less likely that being the best out of 10 is easier than being the best out of 100. That best out of 10 could be the best out of 1,000,000, but we'll simply never know if there isn't the field out there.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, I very very specifically said this is not true and it cannot be proven either way. All it means is that it is less likely that being the best out of 10 is easier than being the best out of 100. That best out of 10 could be the best out of 1,000,000, but we'll simply never know if there isn't the field out there.

Fair enough, but I feel the fact that the sport is far more difficult and complex and tough than many other sports, that the participant level will be naturally smaller, hence one can make a strong case for Katie.

So, you saying "we'll never know" is moot IMO because of the nature and toughness of the sport of boxing. It will never have the same particpation as golf, running and soccer, at a certain level of proficiency.

But nail on the head from you earlier, a good chin wag hurt nobody!

walshb

Yourwellcum wrote: »

TBH all this thread has shown is a natural bias towards peoples own sports or sports they are more interested in.

You cant compare competitors from different sports in the way people want to. There are too many factors to consider.

Katie is one of the greats for sure, but how do you say she is better than someone like Sonia O'Sullivan, Sean Kelly, Harrington etc. Its far too subjective to hold water as a legitimate argument.

It sure is, but don't you love a debate?

Magill

cowzerp wrote: »

A proper Boxer could easily do the marathon without ever training for it, a marathon runner would be bollixed after a real round of boxing, and stopped badly if in with a good boxer. You my friend are clueless

God... Do you think before you type this dribble ?

Yes a good boxer would destroy a good marathon runner in a boxing match... just like a good marathon runner would leave a good boxer for dead in a marathon. Why is that so hard to comprehend ? Are you 10 years old ?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why not? You could say the same about any sport. If it's so easy why don't you invest in a few irons and win a few tournaments? Millions to be made and it's "not this ridiculously hard sport" apparently.

I did say it about any sport.... did you even read what i was replying to ? jesus. He was suggesting that only some people are capable of competing (On any level in boxing), i said that its clearly not as tough as he is making it out to be. I didn't say its not hard to be the best, but to simple compete, like any sport, doesn't take a lot of skill and practice (He said 3 months training and you could complete a marathon, im just saying 3 months and you could have your first boxing match aswel, if not a lot sooner.).

Too be the best in the world, at any of these sports takes a long time and a lot of practice.