Is Katie Taylor Ireland best athlete

walshb

megadodge did acknowledge and take into account the numbers competing. He simply discussed it and gave another sie to this argument, one I fully understand.

Regarding Katie. It has been said many times that her sport is not for everyone. It takes a real special athlete and person to have all the physical and mental qualities to take up the sport of boxing and excel, and for women, this is even rarer, as women in general do not have the make up to perform the art of boxing.

And, as we speak there are many women all over the world that are competing in China for a place in London. The depth and talent is there. There is enough numbers for us to consider Katie as the best athlete we have today.

All time? Who knows, but right now I think she is in a class all by herself. And, no bias here. If Derval for example was a WR holder and WC in track and field I could really put her at the top. Numbers or not, we have nobody in this country that is as successful as Katie is in her sport and their sport. Not close. International I am speaking about.

megadodge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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.

Here's where I ask you to quote (not refer) to where I said YOU 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.


With a quick flick through some earlier pages I got the following quotes (note how I didn't mention your name)

“…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)…”

“…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…”

“…It still doesn't take away from the fact that it is a much less competitive field than that of other more popular sports. In other words... Katie is in the top 0.001% of her sport whereas Rory McIlroy is in the top 0.00001% of his…”

These were the type of quotes that led me to addressing the numbers arguement and if you're honestly trying to tell me the authors of the above don't believe the elite at the more popular sports are 'more elite' then.... I'm obviously wasting my time arguing with you as there would be a fundamental lack of honesty there.

My point is logic based, no more no less.

Your followup post is so stupid I shouldn't have even wasted this sentence on it.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

These were the type of quotes

That is a laughable line or argument. They may also have said the moon is made of green cheese but I DID NOT.
You have decided to infer something in MY posts based on something OTHER people have said. I don't remember being voted spokesperson for any particular viewpoint here. If you have an issue with someone else's argument here, why not, you know, ask them about it instead of me?

megadodge wrote: »

My point is logic based, no more no less.

It most clearly is not. You have decided that if one thing has a higher probability than another then it is a certainty. This is nonsense.

megadodge wrote: »

Your followup post is so stupid I shouldn't have even wasted this sentence on it.

And yet you did and lo and behold the sentence you came out with made no effort whatsoever to refute my point about your logic.

megadodge

In my last post I asked you to quote where I said YOU SAID the best footballer is a better athlete than the best boxer.

You didn't do that.

I wonder why?

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), then no sportsperson is 'greater' since soccer is the most popular sport on earth. Are you aware that that is logic?

Here is where you say my "numbers argument" means only soccer players can be the greatest sportsmen.
Pretty black and white I'm afraid.

megadodge

Oh, I get it now, in Dan Solo land the third person "you" doesn't exist.

Fair enough. But I don't live in Dan Solo land.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Here is where you say my "numbers argument" means only soccer players can be the greatest sportsmen.
Pretty black and white I'm afraid.

dan, not meaning to butt in, but the words, "if" and "suggested" in mega's post clearly say that you were suggesting that one can use the numbers game to imply that those in large particapatory sports are best to consider for the GOAT.

walshb

12345cd678 wrote: »

a woman boxing is as good as a man, no one will want her **** except a butch dike

So insightful.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

Oh, I get it now, in Dan Solo land the third person "you" doesn't exist.

Fair enough. But I don't live in Dan Solo land.

So when you were giving us your mangled interpretation of the "numbers argument" I was quite obviously proposing, you were in fact imagining if someone else was proposing it, instead of me, here, who was actually right now proposing it?
What if you were desperately clutching at straws and you've been caught all ends up? Hey, is that the second or third person "you"? Do "you" know?

makl

Dan, anyone can play soccer. anyone can pick up a ball and run around with it. no commitment, just you, a ball, and a mate or a wall. it takes a bit more to commit to boxing (other sports too).

and fair enough, your wonderin whether theres a correlation between numbers in a sport and quality of competition at the highest level. there is and there isnt. if a sport is difficult to take up - because of technical difficulty or toughness or cost or even class, then those who do take this up have jumped a hurdle that many runners or soccer players will never. so to be in the 0.00x% of soccer is not the same as being in the 0.00x% of boxing. maybe being in the top tier of boxing is more like being in the top tier of gymnastics; you have to consider how accessible the sport is ... the argument could get so theoretical, maybe looking at the toughest sports thread they could be scored on accessibility too.

anyway ive argued this all thru the thread, so what if theres a million people playing basketball and 10 boxing, if one person can hone their skill to the max, to the highest possible demands of their sport, then the rest of the comp can be forgotten about. sure bolt just keeps beating himself. competition is of course healthy but by no means the sole determiner.

megadodge

Let's go back to the start of my input again.

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.

That was my first post on the topic. No mention of Dan Solo anywhere.

As I said there is a certain logic to the numbers arguement, but my whole point was as you (Dan Solo) put it in the following post

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

You were making my point for me!!

Which is -Just because there are less participants doesn't mean the best in the less popular sport isn't as 'great' as the best in the more popular one.

All of which makes that numbers theory redundant. QED.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

Let's go back to the start of my input again.
That was my first post on the topic. No mention of Dan Solo anywhere.

As I said there is a certain logic to the numbers arguement, but my whole point was as you (Dan Solo) put it in the following post

But you know full well that I was going with the "numbers argument" so when you said following the "numbers argument" lead to X, Y and Z you were very, very, clearly saying that *I* would be proposing this.
Very simple.
Not so simple for you to talk your way out of obviously.

megadodge wrote: »

Which is -Just because there are less participants doesn't mean the best in the less popular sport isn't as 'great' as the best in the more popular one.

All of which makes that numbers theory redundant. QED.

It doesn't make it redundant. It still leaves the best in a large field as more likely to be better athletes than the best in a small field. It cannot prove it, but that does not remove the fact that it can tell us about the probability of it.

walshb

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It doesn't make it redundant. It still leaves the best in a large field as more likely to be better athletes than the best in a small field. It cannot prove it, but that does not remove the fact that it can tell us about the probability of it.

Speaking purely about numbers participating, yes, probaility is as you say, more in favour of the higher number. But, when the two items being compared are different, then I believe the numbers argument is weak, and and inefficient way to to come to a choice of the GOAT.

I would lend more weight to complexity and difficulty and hardness in the sport of boxing as opposed to say soccer. Boxing requires that bit more, and in saying this, it follows that less humans will excel in it. Hence, to use the number argument here is inefficient I think.

megadodge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But you know full well that I was going with the "numbers argument" so when you said following the "numbers argument" lead to X, Y and Z you were very, very, clearly saying that *I* would be proposing this.
Very simple.
Not so simple for you to talk your way out of obviously.

All joking aside, you've completely lost me there.

It doesn't make it redundant. It still leaves the best in a large field as more likely to be better athletes than the best in a small field. It cannot prove it, but that does not remove the fact that it can tell us about the probability of it.

As I said in my original post "there is a certain logic to the numbers arguement" meaning the probability aspect you mention.
However, that very theory was what was being used by those who disagreed with Katie Taylor being the best Irish sportsperson as a definitive, as distinct from probable, reason she shouldn't be regarded as such.
The quote above where someone (NOT Dan Solo) said "its not even up for debate, its facts and numbers" backs that up - no mention of probability there, just "facts" and "numbers".

To use a probability arguement as proof is wrong and I pointed that out.

And that's when you got all emotional.

Dan_Solo

megadodge wrote: »

All joking aside, you've completely lost me there.

Well that's hardly surprising when you insist that talking to someone about a argument they are putting forward and its logical conclusions puts them into the third person.
"you" would be easily confused if "you" regularly hold conversations with people and think "you" is in the third person all the time when clearly it isn't.

supersean1999

cant believe this thread has gone on so long, i left it a few days ago because its a question that cant be answered , imo the only thing of cetainty is katie taylor is ireland and the worlds best ever female boxer, but then again i cant name 2 people she has ever competed against, its only womens boxing ,:D another can opened i could not help myself

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

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.

You have just inadvertently proven why I don't believe Michael Carruth's Olympic medal to be quite as high an achievement as Sonia's, for the simple reason that there were better boxers out there (the pros) that would have beaten him if they were eligeable to compete, while in Sonia's case, there was nobody else out there that would have beaten her, as all the world's best runners competed at the Games. I know you may view am and pro as 2 different sports, but regardless of thhis, there is no doubt there are other BOXERS out there at that time that were better than Carruth.

Having said all that, I enjoy watching Am boxing more. Less politics, and at least you have an undisputed winner at each weight. Though all the judging scandels of the last few years have put a bitter taste in the mouth.

Pisco Sour

walshb wrote: »

Speaking purely about numbers participating, yes, probaility is as you say, more in favour of the higher number. But, when the two items being compared are different, then I believe the numbers argument is weak, and and inefficient way to to come to a choice of the GOAT.

I would lend more weight to complexity and difficulty and hardness in the sport of boxing as opposed to say soccer. Boxing requires that bit more, and in saying this, it follows that less humans will excel in it. Hence, to use the number argument here is inefficient I think.

What about a niche sport called World's Strongest Man. Going by your idea of "toughness", it is a hell of a lot tougher than boxing. Feck all people do it though. Can we put forward an argument that Magnus Ver Magnusson or Sven Karlson are among the all time greats of World Sport? What about the GOAT in some random sport only played in Mongolia or Nepal? Again practically nobody plays those sports, so can we count people who win niche obscure sports from some random part of the world?

The numbers argument is perfectly valid. It doesnt say that a soccer player is definetely better than say a female boxer, it just says that he is more than likely better. Probability. IMO, the person in the smaller field would have to achieve more to counteract the disadvantage of not having as much people to compete against.

cowzerp

04072511 wrote: »

The numbers argument is perfectly valid. It doesnt say that a soccer player is definetely better than say a female boxer, it just says that he is more than likely better. Probability. IMO, the person in the smaller field would have to achieve more to counteract the disadvantage of not having as much people to compete against.

Well Katie has achieved more and that is what everyone has been trying to say-World champ 3 times, European champ 5 times and European union champ 4 times-add to this that she is considered the pound 4 pound best Female boxer in the world so she is believed to be The Best not just the best in her categorary, this is a massive achievement

Also it's very fair to say that there is no professional Boxing woman that would be considered at Katie's level so it is fair to say she is the best in the world even if you consider the 2 to be the same game, the world pro number 1 lost to Katie 31-16 in the 2006 world championships and Katie is far better now than she was then, and for the record she trains as much if not more than most pro's and makes a living from Boxing so the other girl would not be getting better training than Katie.

Add to this that she's an Irish soccer International player and calling her Ireland's best Athlete is very valid, to me she is but either way, no matter where your coming from she definitely deserves to be debated as such.

Now to add to the toughness debate, we have been talking about elites which is fair, but the poll was not just based on the elites anyway, Boxing at any level is tough, even 2 kids making there debut's-it's exhausting and all while been punched in the body and face, I ran a white collar boxing show recently and it was 3 x 1 min rounds, thats 1/3rd what katie does-The lads where all wrecked after it and 1 of them lads does Iron man competitions and would be considered fit, there was GAA players, soccer players etc

That is the lowest level possible in Boxing and they all genuinely expressed how tough it was and loved the experience for that fact-it's special.

lot's of sports are tough but a physically tough sport that also contains been battered by an opponent, a sport that its not you against the clock-it's man on man.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

lot's of sports are tough but a physically tough sport that also contains been battered by an opponent, a sport that its not you against the clock-it's man on man.

You are back now again to claiming that because boxing involves getting hit it is "tougher".
That was never the meaning of the word "tough" in this context and this has been clarified several times so far. (to no avail apparently)

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are back now again to claiming that because boxing involves getting hit it is "tougher".
That was never the meaning of the word "tough" in this context and this has been clarified several times so far. (to no avail apparently)

I'm talking about toughness in endurance aswell, been hit takes the wind and leg's out of you and makes a physically draining activity even harder.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

I'm talking about toughness in endurance aswell, been hit takes the wind and leg's out of you and makes a physically draining activity even harder.

Repeatedly demonstrating you do not understand what the word "tough" means in this context.
Think "Fermat's last theorem is tough"

cowzerp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Repeatedly demonstrating you do not understand what the word "tough" means in this context.
Think "Fermat's last theorem is tough"

I think you're the 1 who is missing the meaning-I ma expalining how hard it is to do physically and how been hit makes it even tougher again, in the context they're talking about speed, Boxing requires great speed, Skill, Boxing requires great skill and co-ordination-I know what the poll was about and Boxing was picked as top's.

So what is your problem-Physically it is 1 of the toughest, Mentally and from a skill point of view it is too-Katie excels in this.

walshb

04072511 wrote: »

You have just inadvertently proven why I don't believe Michael Carruth's Olympic medal to be quite as high an achievement as Sonia's, for the simple reason that there were better boxers out there (the pros) that would have beaten him if they were eligeable to compete, while in Sonia's case, there was nobody else out there that would have beaten her, as all the world's best runners competed at the Games. I know you may view am and pro as 2 different sports, but regardless of thhis, there is no doubt there are other BOXERS out there at that time that were better than Carruth.

Having said all that, I enjoy watching Am boxing more. Less politics, and at least you have an undisputed winner at each weight. Though all the judging scandels of the last few years have put a bitter taste in the mouth.

I had a feeling you would post back saying what you have. So, for the 11th time, Am and Pro are not the same sport. They are even more different sports than any other example of a sport(s) with an amateur and pro status. I inadvertantly proved nothing.

No pro today "would" be guaranteed a gold medal if he met an amateur(s), when he (the pro) was an amateur himself.

Example: Duran, Hagler, Tyson. None of these are guaranteed a medal in 1972, 1976 and 1984. And, Tyson didn't even make the amateur team in 1984.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

I had a feeling you would post back saying what you have. So, for the 11th time, Am and Pro are not the same sport. They are even more different sports than any other example of a sport(s) with an amateur and pro status. I inadvertantly proved nothing.

No pro today "would" be guaranteed a gold medal if he met an amateur(s), when he (the pro) was an amateur himself.

Example: Duran, Hagler, Tyson. None of these are guaranteed a medal in 1972, 1976 and 1984. And, Tyson didn't even make the amateur team in 1984.

Bren to expand on your point and improve it
Even the best pro's are not guaranteed to win the olympics, PBF is 1 of if not the best Boxer in the world but would not be guaranteed to win the 2012 Olympics if he could enter it-The scoring is so different and he would be fighting Boxers who train for this system and who are high class at it, Mike Tyson at his best could have won by KO but if not there was every chance he could be beaten on points over 3 rounds.

It is just a different game, now put the amateurs in a pro ring and the advantage would go to the lads who train to box pro.

As i already said though-this is about Katie Taylor and she would still be the best 60kg female on the planet even if Pro's could box in the Amateurs.

makl

04072511 wrote: »

The numbers argument is perfectly valid. It doesnt say that a soccer player is definetely better than say a female boxer, it just says that he is more than likely better. Probability. IMO, the person in the smaller field would have to achieve more to counteract the disadvantage of not having as much people to compete against.

No its not! It's easy to pick up a ball or go for a run so plenty of people will do for a bit of fun, making a bigger field, full of dead weight. It's not easy to join a boxing club and learn to box. So of course there will be less people, but the effort it takes to learn how to box (and other sports for reasons i said above) eliminates much of the dead weight.

Dan_Solo

cowzerp wrote: »

I think you're the 1 who is missing the meaning-I ma expalining how hard it is to do physically and how been hit makes it even tougher again, in the context they're talking about speed, Boxing requires great speed, Skill, Boxing requires great skill and co-ordination-I know what the poll was about and Boxing was picked as top's.

So what is your problem-Physically it is 1 of the toughest, Mentally and from a skill point of view it is too-Katie excels in this.

You just did it again!
Getting a ball into the top corner of a football net from 30 yards with 11 people trying to stop you is just as "tough". Tough = difficult. You are constantly trying to make the case that some forms of difficulty are more important than others in determining overall toughness of a sport. You repeatedly equate toughness with boxing skills when that is physical endurance and resistance to damage, only one type of physical skill.

makl

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You just did it again!
Getting a ball into the top corner of a football net from 30 yards with 11 people trying to stop you is just as "tough".

and thats why f**k all people can do it. they can stil play soccer tho

Dan_Solo

makl wrote: »

No its not! It's easy to pick up a ball or go for a run so plenty of people will do for a bit of fun, making a bigger field, full of dead weight. It's not easy to join a boxing club and learn to box.

That's nonsense. It's as easy to join a boxing club as any other sport. The fact that people don't is simply down to popularity. How many people tune into soccer every weekend compared to subscribing to BoxNation? Some sports are simply more popular than others, and that's why we can say the best at them are definitely in a smaller percentage abilitywise as opposed to only a likelihood for minority sports.

Dan_Solo

makl wrote: »

and thats why f**k all people can do it. they can stil play soccer tho

Well f**k all people can play football, no matter how many of them turn up for the works league, so you really have no point at all.