[MK Chris]

No, not foot-loose's favourite sexual partner...


(For the new people.)

Anyway - interesting discussion that Vernon brought up today regarding the greatest sportsperson of all time - I'm not sure I agree with his argument about Federer. No he won't be winning majors into his mid-30s, but then I'd have said (and I could be wrong because I don't know golf very well) that golf is less physical than tennis and therefore probably tends to have a lower peak age.

Anyway, for me the greatest sportsperson of all time has to be an amateur - Max Woosnam, who accomplished feats that would not be possible today - played football for England, Manchester City (for whom he was captain) and Chelsea; scored a century against the MCC, playingcricket at Lord's; scratch golfer; played tennis at Wimbledon, won an Olympic Gold medal for mens doubles in tennis and captained Britain's Davis Cup team; got a 147 break in snooker; oh and he was quite good at table tennis.

Without a doubt, the man could have been professional in a number of sports, but didn't like the idea.

[Johnny 1989]

Impressive sportsman, all that stuff he did & I bet he didn't get payed nearly as much as these so called "sportsman" of today (I'm pointing the finger at you Christiano Ronaldo)

[Zoot]

Blimey, the guy was incredible! I loved this bit -

"He once defeated actor and film director Charlie Chaplin at table tennis playing with a butter knife instead of a bat."

[Yudster]

I can't help thinking that his achievements say far more about the poor standard of sport in those days (compared to now that is) than they do about him as an athlete. No one could do that many sports at the highest level these days however amazing an athlete they might be, its just too tough. I know you can only compete in the situation you are in WHEN you compete, but I believe that today's athletes are operating at a much higher level than their predecessors, therefore I think they deserve to be seen as better.

[Munki Bhoy]

I agreed with whoever said Lance Armstrong.

[MK Chris]

To an extent you are possibly correct, but he doubtless had talent. I think much of the fact it couldn't happen today is because today's sportsmen have to concentrate on one thing in order to become that good - if he had concentrated on one sport, who is to say he wouldn't have been even better at his chosen vocation? Also in those days pretty much every sport had poorer equipment and was harder as a result - wooden tennis racquets with a miniscule sweet spot, rather than graphite and carbon and a sweet spot the size of the whole racquet, ivory snooker balls, etc.

[Yudster]

Lance Armstrong is an incredible athlete and a brilliant man. He was winning national triathlon titles - in the adults sections - when he was 13 for gods sake. Vernon got a lot of Lance Facts wrong though - he won 7 Tours de France (1999 - 2005) which is completely unprecedented, no one else has even got close - and after almost four years of retirement he came back and finished 3rd (not 2nd as Vernon said). And he didn't have six kinds of cancer, he had a rare form of testicular cancer which spread to his abdomen, lungs and brain and he was given less than a 5% chance of survival.

BUT - going by Vernon's criteria, Lance Armstrong would be the first person to point out that winning the Tour de France, whilst it looks like an individual victory, is actually totally dependant on strong team effort and he would say that he competes very much in a team.

[English Bob]

Goats you say?

[MK Chris]

OK, I had a Viv moment when doing the topic title.

[DannyBoy]

Ray Houghton scoring against England EURO 88.

[foot-loose]

'mon the goats!