Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gh
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Originally posted by Rog
    Possibly Carl Lewis, who despite being possibly the greatest athlete of all-time is the only one to have failed a drug test?
    Except that never happened. A great myth.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    mjr, I know you walk guys have to endure a lot of crap, but you're paranoid if you somehow read into my statement I had a problem with a walker in the next group. I was merely pointing out that that was the only event grouping that hadn't been represented, so by definition we know there's one coming up next time around.

    As for "political," if Primo were still about I've no doubt that Damilano would be the choice. Like Lop, I'd go for Golubnichiy.

    Leave a comment:


  • LopenUupunut
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong?

    Originally posted by MJR
    Originally posted by gh
    in reading IAAF material more fully, I see they were up-front about the distribution of the first 24:

    <<These 24 athletes will represent all IAAF Areas and include all major event groups (sprint, middle distance, long distance, hurdles, jumps, throws, combined events, race walk, and road running)>>

    So there will by definition be a walker in the second 12.
    And you have a problem with this?

    Best guess is the political vote will go to Maurizio Damilano, but either Robert Korzeniowski or Jefferson Perez would be a better selection as neither has been associated with blood doping or election rigging.
    Korzeniowski and Perez aren't eligible yet, they haven't been retired for 10 years. (Golubnychy, on the other hand, is very much eligible.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Deerfoot
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    I too see no problem with Bikila. He probably wouldn't have been in my initial twelve, but I can see why someone might put him there. He's arguably the greatest marathoner ever, winning the olympic title twice, both times with a world best. As hc10003 said, he also spearheaded the wave of African distance runners.
    I think it's great that a walker will get a look in. But what about steeplechasers?

    Leave a comment:


  • MJR
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong?

    Originally posted by gh
    in reading IAAF material more fully, I see they were up-front about the distribution of the first 24:

    <<These 24 athletes will represent all IAAF Areas and include all major event groups (sprint, middle distance, long distance, hurdles, jumps, throws, combined events, race walk, and road running)>>

    So there will by definition be a walker in the second 12.
    And you have a problem with this?

    Best guess is the political vote will go to Maurizio Damilano, but either Robert Korzeniowski or Jefferson Perez would be a better selection as neither has been associated with blood doping or election rigging.

    Leave a comment:


  • ralmcg
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    What about Mildred "Babe" Didrikson. She should qualify since she had two gold medals at the 1932 Summer Olympics and she did set world records at the 1932 AAU Championships. She was also a very versitile athlete.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rog
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Possibly Carl Lewis, who despite being possibly the greatest athlete of all-time is the only one to have failed a drug test?

    Leave a comment:


  • andyjgt
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Originally posted by gh
    Holmes in the HOF? I don't see her as even on the radar (like Bob Beamon--another who doesn't belong--she's basically a one-trick pony).
    Well, Garry, as I always say when drunk (which I am not now), she was knighted before retiring and Daley still hasn't been 20 years after quitting.

    I don't know whether single great achievements (which Kelly's was, one must admit) warrant inclusion in a HOF, which is for lifetime achievements/whole careers. It's like having Rodgers or Eli in the NFL HOF now but Marino and Elway not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Per Andersen
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Originally posted by gh
    OK, my bleating provoked a reaction. I'm now reliably informed that the 2-medal stricture applies only to this original class (of 24).

    (I still think they're wrong excluding Brumel from the first 12, but that's a matter of personal opinion)
    If they had included Brumel would that mean no Zatopek or Nurmi?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Bear in mind, if Wang was the Asian entry, they were not competing for the same spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Originally posted by mump boy
    where's Irena ??
    Wang over Szewinska is an unfunny joke :evil: .

    Leave a comment:


  • hc10003
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Originally posted by gh
    I have no problem with Wang as a Hall of Famer, but for her (and da Silva) (and maybe Bikila and Cuthbert) to be in the symbolic first class is indeed unsettling.
    I am curious as to what is unsettling about Bikila. Two time Oly champ (the only legit two-time champ, according to F. Shorter), WR, and the historic context of the first African distance medalist, ushering in a new era in the sport. It would seem the combination of excellence in the most prestigious competition in the sport plus being at the forefront of a sea change in the competitive landscape is the essence of a hall of fame resume, or am I missing something?

    Leave a comment:


  • dukehjsteve
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    I guess they never heard of Parry O'Brien either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vault-emort
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Originally posted by gh
    not sure I'd make Cuthbert even first among my Aussie women (think Strickland-delaHunty). And if they wanted an Oceanian, way top of the heap is Snell (but he throws off the sex balance)
    Yes, I'd prefer Strickland first too (Cuthbert still being alive may have been a factor?). I imagine Snell will be the next Oceanian elected.

    Of the other Aussies, I think only Marjorie Jackson (and Strickland) meet the initial criteria. So no possibility yet of past superstars like Landy, Elliott or Ron Clarke joining the club.

    Overall, I'd prefer it if they concentrated on early athletes initially. The tennis hall of fame features lots of recent (rather ordinary in some cases) champions but has overlooked many higher-achieving stars of days gone by.

    At first I thought recent athletes had an advantage of numerous World Championships, but I guess they have the disadvantage of WRs in many events being an impossible dream.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    Holmes in the HOF? I don't see her as even on the radar (like Bob Beamon--another who doesn't belong--she's basically a one-trick pony).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X