Is Katie Taylor Ireland best athlete

efb

04072511 wrote: »

:eek: David Gillick?? 44.77

Brian Gregan ran 45.9 last year. He'll be mid 45s this year I reckon.

so neither have ran 44 then???

walshb

Just another point about AM and PRO boxing. Floyd would IMO beat any 69 kg fighter over 1,2 or 3 rds, via points or KO with any rules. But, as an AM, Floyd did not win the gold medal. That is how competitive the sport is, and also, it shows the difference between AM and PRO. PRO Floyd is a different beast and animal. That is to do with the fact that he is a PRO, and has developed and trained as a PRO.

Pisco Sour

efb wrote: »

so neither have ran 44 then???

David Gillick has run 44, on 6 occasions. I never said sub 44. No non American has ever run sub 44, and only one non-African American has run sub 44, and that is Jeremy Wariner. No Jamaican has ever run sub 44. Sub 45 is world class.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

:eek: David Gillick?? 44.77

Brian Gregan ran 45.9 last year. He'll be mid 45s this year I reckon.

I am well aware of the record runs, but in general, today our 400 runners are running closer to 46 than 44, yes? Not one man yet has made the A standard as far as I know. BTW, 46 secs is top class.

efb

04072511 wrote: »

David Gillick has run 44, on 6 occasions. I never said sub 44. No non American has ever run sub 44, and only one non-African American has run sub 44, and that is Jeremy Wariner. No Jamaican has ever run sub 44. Sub 45 is world class.

So 44 is 44.00 to 44.99, must be the accountant in me, that wouldn't see that.

Any you have one example, which is "44"

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Just another point about AM and PRO boxing. Floyd would IMO beat any 69 kg fighter over 1,2 or 3 rds, via points or KO with any rules. But, as an AM, Floyd did not win the gold medal. That is how competitive the sport is, and also, it shows the difference between AM and PRO. PRO Floyd is a different beast and animal. That is to do with the fact that he is a PRO, and has developed and trained as a PRO.

He wasnt at his peak when he competed at the Olympics so that is irrelevant.

You are admitting here that the pro boxers in general would beat the amateur boxers over amateur rules, so why is it so hard for you to comprehend the idea that the best boxer in the world does not win the Olympic gold, unlike in athletics, where the best runner will win.

Pisco Sour

efb wrote: »

So 44 is 44.00 to 44.99, must be the accountant in me, that wouldn't see that.

Any you have one example, which is "44"

Correct. A 44 second run would be anything with 44 at the start of it. Oh and I'm an accountant also.

Do you know anything about athletics and running? You just seem to be argueing for the sake of it. Saying a sport that you know is a lot tougher than a sport you dont know much about? That's a bit silly.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

He wasnt at his peak when he competed at the Olympics so that is irrelevant.

You are admitting here that the pro boxers in general would beat the amateur boxers over amateur rules, so why is it so hard for you to comprehend the idea that the best boxer in the world does not win the Olympic gold, unlike in athletics, where the best runner will win.

Because I must have said it ten times now. TWO different sports. The best boxer does win. He wins in the officially recognised sport called Amateur Boxing. Pros are not eligible for this sport.

And Floyd was at his peak in the Games. His Amateur peak.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

I am well aware of the record runs, but in general, today our 400 runners are running closer to 46 than 44, yes? Not one man yet has made the A standard as far as I know. BTW, 46 secs is top class.

Gillick was out injured all last year. He'll get the A this year.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Gillick was out injured all last year. He'll get the A this year.

I pray he does. I think it's 45 flat? Maybe 45.2?

efb

04072511 wrote: »

Correct. A 44 second run would be anything with 44 at the start of it. Oh and I'm an accountant also.

Do you know anything about athletics and running? You just seem to be argueing for the sake of it. Saying a sport that you know is a lot tougher than a sport you dont know much about? That's a bit silly.

When did I say that? Because saying someone said they didn't is quite silly, no?

All I ever said was am and pro boxing are different disciplines, never made any reference to the perceived "toughness" of athletics v pro/am boxing, but please refer me to where i did. Cheers.

but 45.anything wouldn't be 44, and one isn't many? - that remains true yes?

Pisco Sour

efb wrote: »

When did I say that? Because saying someone said they didn't is quite silly, no?

All I ever said was am and pro boxing are different disciplines, never made any reference to the perceived "toughness" of athletics v pro/am boxing, but please refer me to where i did. Cheers.

but 45.anything wouldn't be 44, and one isn't many? - that remains true yes?

Apologies, it was Cowzerp who came out with that nonsense, not you!

I used 44 as an example. It doesn't really change the point I was making to Cowzerp. Try running 46, 48, whatever. It is insanely tough. Silly of him to make such an ingnorant statement.

I train for 400m and I run it in 58 (hopefully a few seconds faster next year). It's tough. Doing a sport makes you appreciate just how tough it is and how amazing the top guys are. Running is tough, no 2 ways about it.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

I pray he does. I think it's 45 flat? Maybe 45.2?

45.30. It's one of the tougher A-Standards.

efb

If we can't agree who the best sportsperson is in their own discipline, how are we supposed to argue across disciplines or even sports?

but for shits and giggles here's mine:
athletics: Ronnie Delaney
boxing: Katie Taylor
football: liam brady
golf: padraig harrington

and thats where the row starts...

walshb

Boxing? Taylor

Soccer? Irwin

Athletics? Coghlan

Golf? Padraig

Magill

Boxing? Jimmy McLarnin

Soccer? George Best

Athletics? Sonia O'Sullivan

Golf? Padraig Harrington (For now !)

Rugby? Brian O'Driscoll

efb

rugby: BoD - great to witness a living legend

walshb

How did I forget Best. He is numero uno for soccer, by a mile.

BOD is top 5 ever across all sports.

Pisco Sour

Boxing? Barry McGuigan

Soccer? Roy Kean/ Johnny Giles/ Liam Brady. Can't decide between them.

Athletics? Sonia O'Sullivan

Golf? Padraig Harrington

Rugby? Brian O'Driscoll

Not sure I'd include Rory McIroy as he has previously stated we would chose team GB over Ireland for Rio Olympics.

For athletics, Coghlan and Treacy are not in Sonia's league. The only one who has a case of being ahead of her would be Patrick O'Callaghan (2 Olympic gold medals), Bob Tisdall (Olympic gold) and Ronnie Delaney (Olympic gold). The first 2 won their titles when the sport was a lot less globalised and much less competitive than it is now. Even with regards Ronnie, despite winning in the golden era of mile running, he still didnt have to contend with Africans, as the great African emergence didn't happen until some time after. Sonia achieved a ridiculous amount in the most competitive of era. Honourable mention to Mark Carroll. Who's Mark Carroll? Well he is the 2nd fastest white man ever over 3000m, and until last year held the Irish 5000 record aswell (until Cragg broke it). He competed in the 90s, against Africans. He never stood a chance. Had he competed in Coghlan and Treacy's era he'd be a living legend now.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

Honourable mention to Mark Carroll. Who's Mark Carroll? Well he is the 2nd fastest white man ever over 3000m, and until last year held the Irish 5000 record aswell (until Cragg broke it). He competed in the 90s, against Africans. He never stood a chance. Had he competed in Coghlan and Treacy's era he'd be a living legend now.

If Carroll was in Coghlan's era he would be as Coghlan was. Cannot put him in that era as he is. Eras have improved thru science and technolgy and diet and training. Carroll's mile and 1500 times are almost identical to Eamon's. But, Eamon competed in an era before him. I could argue that Coghlan in Carroll's era with the benefit of progression and diet and knowledge etc would have better times. Probably 1.5-2.5 secs over 1500/mile, and maybe ten secs over 5000. I will say that Carroll's range is better. He is a sub 28 10 k runner and 2 hr 10 marathon man. Unreal when you also think of his best at 1500 and the mile.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

If Carroll was in Coghlan's era he would be as Coghlan was. Cannot put him in that era as he is. Eras have improved thru science and technolgy and diet and training. Carroll's mile and 1500 times are almost identical to Eamon's. But, Eamon competed in an era before him. I could argue that Coghlan in Carroll's era with the benefit of progression and diet and knowledge etc would have better times. Probably 1.5-2.5 secs over 1500/mile, and maybe ten secs over 5000. I will say that Carroll's range is better. He is a sub 28 10 k runner and 2 hr 10 marathon man. Unreal when you also think of his best at 1500 and the mile.

Yeh I agree. Coghlan was a special talent. But had he been around in the 90s I don't think he would have been able to compete against the Africans. Carroll is very underrated, simply because he doesn't have the major medals (except a European Indoor Gold, and outdoor bronze) to back it up. I think if he was around in the 80s, he'd have major medals over 5000m. Two great runners anyway.

megadodge

Just two points here.

1. I agree there is a certain logic to the numbers arguement, but if you follow it through to it's full extent, using that logic the greatest sportsperson in the world, now or of all-time has to be a soccer player. You can't consider Federer/Nadal/Mayweather/Woods/Ali/Owens/Gretzky etc.
It's a flawed arguement.

2. Amateur Boxing and Professional Boxing rely on very different tactics, especially since the advent of computer scoring (now over 20 years in operation). I am a betting man and I have made considerable money with my gambling winnings as I'm very, very thorough about my research before ever betting. So please think about that when I say - if the Olympic gold medal winners of 2012 were to meet their professional equivalents in 3 round bouts using amateur boxing rules I would put considerable money on the amateurs in every single bout!! It would be an almost guaranteed moneymaker.
And yes, that includes betting against Floyd Mayweather.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

Just two points here.

1. I agree there is a certain logic to the numbers arguement, but if you follow it through to it's full extent, using that logic the greatest sportsperson in the world, now or of all-time has to be a soccer player. You can't consider Federer/Nadal/Mayweather/Woods/Ali/Owens/Gretzky etc.
It's a flawed arguement.

It is just as well nobody has made that argument then.
It's tougher to be the best out of 1,000,000 than out of 10. This does not mean that the best out of 10 could not also be the best out of 1,000,000 if there were more opponents, it just means we'll never know.

megadodge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It is just as well nobody has made that argument then.
It's tougher to be the best out of 1,000,000 than out of 10. This does not mean that the best out of 10 could not also be the best out of 1,000,000 if there were more opponents, it just means we'll never know.

That's why I said "if you follow it [numbers arguement] through to it's full extent", only one logical conclusion can be reached. That's why it's flawed.

You're actually making my point for me in the second paragraph. That very point shows you too believe the numbers arguement is flawed.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

2. Amateur Boxing and Professional Boxing rely on very different tactics, especially since the advent of computer scoring (now over 20 years in operation). .

I want to add that it's a lot more than just tactics. The pros even punch that bit different. Power and speed more combined. Stamina, toughness, savagery etc. This has to be considered too. That is why to me and many fight fans they are two different sports.

Now, I would bet the other way to you. Put a top pro in the ring against an amateur, and to me the chances that the amateur makes it the whole 9 minutes is too slim. Headger or not, they lose.

As for the "rules," there is no rule in the Amateur game that prohibits throwing savage and heavy power shots for 9 minutes. That being said, I will gamble on say Manny being far too ferocious for any man at 64-69 kg.

What real advantage has an amateur over Manny in a 9 minute bout with a headgear? Manny is a hell of a boxer, cute, fast and also a savage puncher.

I don't see any Amateur at 64 or 69 outboxing him over 9 minutes. Unless the referee aids the amateur some way. I also cannot see many being able to take Manny's shots once he throws and lands. Remember, Manny won't at all have to worry about fatigue or tiring. He can go on full trottle for 9 minutes and still be fresh as a daisy. The training and added stamina that the top pros have will be very helpful.

Take Khan as well. Do you believe any man at 64 Kg beats Amir over 9 minutes? Khan hasn't miraculously lost all his skills just because he now is a pro and does not wear a headgear. What amateur rules today would prevent Khan from being too good over 9 minutes against any 64 kg fighter?

I love the amateur game and those who compete at the top are superb, but I find it odd to think that as good as they are that they somehow should be able to beat, or expected to beat a top pro over 9 minutes, just because they have headgear and that they are boxing under "amateur rules." My point is that there is no rules in the game to prevent a top pro from breaking an amateur fighter with superior firepower and overall hardness.

Not saying the pro walks in, throws a few shots and it's over, no. The top ams will put up a fight, but to me the top pros should be too heavy hitting, strong and fit, even if it is 9 mins. They can go full trottle for those 9 mins without any fear of real fatigue.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

That's why I said "if you follow it [numbers arguement] through to it's full extent", only one logical conclusion can be reached. That's why it's flawed.

Where is it flawed? It makes the best footballer on earth within the top 0.0001% of participants where it makes the best 60kg boxer within the top 0.1% of participants. That is all that being the best can guarantee. We simply do not know anything beyond that.
This DOES NOT say that only a footballer can be the best athlete. Just that he's more likely to be.
You are aware there is a difference between a probability and a certainty?

megadodge

I really cannot see how I can put it any simpler.

If you use the numbers arguement to argue that a boxer is not 'greater' than a soccer player (and please don't insult my intelligence by saying that is not being suggested - it certainly is), then no sportsperson is 'greater' since soccer is the most popular sport on earth. Are you aware that that is logic?
That's all I'm saying. It's the logical conclusion if you follow it through.

You said it yourself - "We simply do not know anything beyond that" and "This does not mean that the best out of 10 could not also be the best out of 1,000,000 if there were more opponents, it just means we'll never know". You are 100% correct, which invalidates the whole numbers theory!!

I posted earlier that the best Irish sportsperson I've seen participates in a definite minority sport (handball). Absolutely no disrespect to Keane/Brady/Giles/McGrath, but I've never seen any Irish soccer player reach the equivalent level of near-perfection in soccer that Paul Brady has reached in handball and I don't care how many more Irish people play soccer.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

If you use the numbers arguement to argue that a boxer is not 'greater' than a soccer player (and please don't insult my intelligence by saying that is not being suggested - it certainly is)

Well then it is being suggested by YOU, as I have quite clearly never said this.
Here's where I ask you to quote (not refer) to where I said the best footballer is a better athlete than the best boxer. Followed closely by you not being able to and having to change the subject.
Been here before a million times with you "infer" types.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

I posted earlier that the best Irish sportsperson I've seen participates in a definite minority sport (handball). Absolutely no disrespect to Keane/Brady/Giles/McGrath, but I've never seen any Irish soccer player reach the equivalent level of near-perfection in soccer that Paul Brady has reached in handball and I don't care how many more Irish people play soccer.

By your own definitions then some guy could invent a sport that only he plays and be so good at it you'd think he was Ireland's best sportsman.

Magill

megadodge wrote: »

I really cannot see how I can put it any simpler.

If you use the numbers arguement to argue that a boxer is not 'greater' than a soccer player (and please don't insult my intelligence by saying that is not being suggested - it certainly is), then no sportsperson is 'greater' since soccer is the most popular sport on earth. Are you aware that that is logic?
That's all I'm saying. It's the logical conclusion if you follow it through.

You said it yourself - "We simply do not know anything beyond that" and "This does not mean that the best out of 10 could not also be the best out of 1,000,000 if there were more opponents, it just means we'll never know". You are 100% correct, which invalidates the whole numbers theory!!

I posted earlier that the best Irish sportsperson I've seen participates in a definite minority sport (handball). Absolutely no disrespect to Keane/Brady/Giles/McGrath, but I've never seen any Irish soccer player reach the equivalent level of near-perfection in soccer that Paul Brady has reached in handball and I don't care how many more Irish people play soccer.

The entire argument is pointless. If you don't take into consideration the depth of competition then you may aswel not take anything into consideration as everything else is nothing but opinion (Usually a biased one at that, considering we are in the boxing forum) on what is more of an achievement.