Difference between revisions of "Talk:Sportsman of the Year"

Latest revision as of 00:54, January 23, 2013

Complaints

First off the word is "Sportsman" not "Sporstman". Secondly it has been awarded to conservative athletes that appear on your very own list. Mary Lou Retton 1984 and Curt Schilling 2001. --DonnyC 18:42, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I truly do not see a lot of bad choices for Sportsman of the Year, with few exceptions. A good many of them excemplify the 'Sports' portion of the award, for instance Pat Summitt (2011) who became the winningest coach of NCAA Women's College Basketball, all the while battling the opening rounds of dementia. And in the case of Lance Armstrong, that was before anyone besides himself and a select few knew of his doping. At the time, he was the winner of the Tour de France, a cancer survivor, and founder of Livestrong. WesleyS^Hello! 19:26, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Then why aren't more Greatest Conservative Sports Stars among the winners??? Ted Williams wasn't good enough for it??? LeBron James, this past year's winner, is not even the best basketball player, let alone the best athlete.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I am not saying the list is faultless. Lebron surely shouldn't be the Sportsman of the Year in any year due to his hubris; but the list appears to partially transcend the best player in any sport of that particular year, but one who played well and also cared about a particular social issue. WesleyS^Hello! 21:37, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Drew Brees also appears on your list and won Sportsman of the Year in 2010. --DonnyC 20:11, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I don't buy into any political conspiracy, but I am curious as to why an award that is apparently a world-wide award is so disproportionately given to Americans. Look at 2005 for instance. Is there anyone who could with a straight face say that Tom Brady was better than Dan Carter that year? I doubt it. --DamianJohn 20:17, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Is there anyone, any year, better than Dan, Damian? AlanE 21:19, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Well no, obviously; but I think 2005 is an especially strong case.  :) --DamianJohn 21:29, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I draw a line at the "obviously". But '05, yes. (Do you think they have any idea at all what we are talking about?) AlanE 21:36, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Yeah, something about rugby. After that, no clue. Rugby, and for that matter, cricket (which I would love to learn how that works) aren't readily available to us Americans. WesleyS^Hello! 21:47, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I have my tongue firmly within my cheek with my last comment, but as a big fan of both the NFL and rugby, Dan Carter was more impressive that year than Brady was. I get that Sports Illustrated is a Yankee magazine, but I think they should really just stop making the award available to the world, and stop the pretence. (And here is Dan Carter in a pretty good performance in 2005) --DamianJohn 21:51, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Again, us Yanks haven't much exposure to rugby, although it is played on the collegiate level and by small clubs, but Carter's performance was impressive. I am afraid that I cannot compare that to Tom Brady's 2005 performance (and as a Steelers fan, my feelings for Brady are less than respectful) because of my lack of rugby knowledge. WesleyS^Hello! 22:57, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Do you really think Annie Oakley, Chuck Norris, Billy Sunday, Ewan Murray, Gavin Peacock, J.C. Watts, Jason Robinson, Michael Jones, and Phillip Rivers would be suitable winners? Face it, man, you've got some pretty obscure figures on your little list. MattyD 20:45, 21 January 2013 (EST)

My issue with the Greatest Conservative Sports Stars and its cousin Overrated Sports Stars list is that criteria for selection appears to be only known to Andrew Schlafly. --DonnyC 20:53, 21 January 2013 (EST)

It's pretty simple, What Andrew likes is conservative and good. What Andrew does not like is liberal, overrated and bad. MattyD 20:56, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Yep. In 2002, Andy would have been hailing Lance Armstrong as a testament to conservative hard work and determination. I have learnt not to take Andy's views even remotely seriously when it comes to sports. I suggest you all do the same - there is nothing he knows less about than sport! --DamianJohn 21:01, 21 January 2013 (EST)

"...there is nothing [Andy] knows less about than sport!". You've obviously never visited that talk pages of any of the articles involving the Theory of Relativity. --DonnyC 21:13, 21 January 2013 (EST)

No, I am aware of his unconventional views on physics. I just think his pronouncements on sport are even worse. He literally has no idea about the subject. --DamianJohn 21:15, 21 January 2013 (EST)

I would suggest that you don't make similar statements like the one you just made about any user. It is best to show a user where they are wrong rather than just denigrating them. Dvergne 09:28, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Andy is a big boy. He can certainly look after himself. I really don't think he needs a knight in shining armour to support him. --DamianJohn 17:28, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Dvergne is right. Ad hominem remarks are unenlightening, and disfavored on this site.--Andy Schlafly 19:36, 22 January 2013 (EST)

I would tend to agree. My apologies for any past transgressions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you'd pass on your condemnation for ad hominem attacks and simple personal insults on to User:Conservative. Thanks you. --DonnyC 19:51, 22 January 2013 (EST)

Well, just to name a few, you are the one who keeps claiming that there is a conspiracy to keep players out of positions based on their politics, claimed that a satirical piece written about Kim Jong Il's golfing prowess was legitimate and who claims that the expert management of a rookie player who performed to his potential is evidence that the best of the public is better than experts (or something just as nonsensical). I stand by my comment that you are essentially clueless when it comes to sports. If you consider that to be an ad hominem, remember that you yourself have frequently called people "clueless" when they disagree with you on something. --DamianJohn 19:54, 22 January 2013 (EST)