Mo Farah.

I don't really see how you can discount Chris Foy just because he rides a bike.

*Chris Hoy..

''in boxing there is david haye''
----------------------------
And that's what makes this thread pointless.

After today, there's probably only one name that'll be accepted.

Andy Murray.

the blue kenyan

did you not see my point about machinery maybe giving cyclists an unfair advantage --

Oh never mind. I see you already have that covered.

TUX

surely you can come up with something of more substance than that bud --

T and A

good to see the scots finally having a world class athlete that has the ability to maybe rule for a few years --

Chris Hoy is still a tremendous athlete though.

the blue kenyan

have no doubt that chris hoy knows how to peddle a halfords special -- for me he is still very reliant on his pushbike and that pushbike may be better than other pushbikes he is up against --

http://m1194.photobucket.com/albumview/albums/tecnorapia/GurningChampion4.jpg.html?o=266

comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 46 minutes ago
the blue kenyan

have no doubt that chris hoy knows how to peddle a halfords special -- for me he is still very reliant on his pushbike and that pushbike may be better than other pushbikes he is up against --
============

It's interesting you apply this logic here but you do not when it comes to Vettel.

But we know why, don't we

man unt dev

fluck me manx you are letting vettel get to you my old son - its only a sport its not worth getting paranoid over a driver just because he is not english -

did you not see how i excluded drivers from my opinion of who i thought was the best british sportsman ?
------------------get with the programme manx

This a a slightly odd topic as it seems to imply that any person who uses a tool to win something is automatically at a advantage to others who can use their own tools?

Surely theres been a time where a British sports person has won on the second best 'object'

n six

just think there is a bit more natural talent involved when the athlete in question does not have a machine or a horse to do most of the work for him or her --

Not sure about that Martial, it could give them an advantage or a disadvantage, I agree with that part but a car without a driver or a bike without a rider aint going to be winning any races any time soon. Any sport requires talent at that sport to be good at it.

nsix

hear what you are saying -- for me it takes away any element of doubt that it was the athletes own skill that won him whatever trophy when he is not reliant on a machine of some sort -
-------- just something a bit more credible about it --

Where do you draw the line Martial?
All pro's have the best equipment, no one.... ok very very few people compete in any sport naked with no equipment

nsix

just my opinion -- i just think boxers , tennis players , olympic athletes and the like are not reliant on a machine of some sort to make them look good -

will give you an example of what i mean that you are probably familiar with yourself -

mansell won the 92 WDC because he had by far the best car at the time but he was never in a million years the best driver at the time because prost and senna were around at the same time -

another example -- hill won the 96 WDC but he was never the best driver because schumacher was around --
when there is no machine involved it takes away any element of doubt and it is just the individuals own pure skill involved and nothing else --

and opinions, if (for example) drivers all have different cars you can only have a opinion of who is worthy and who is not

It works in many ways these things

n six

very much agree with you on that last point --

comment by martial artist (U9033)
posted 9 hours, 24 minutes ago
nsix
will give you an example of what i mean that you are probably familiar with yourself -
mansell won the 92 WDC because he had by far the best car at the time but he was never in a million years the best driver at the time because prost and senna were around at the same time

another example -- hill won the 96 WDC but he was never the best driver because schumacher was around
==================================

I agree with you here as I had doubts about Mansell and Hill. It is indeed a fair point. Look at the current grid for example, Alonso is arguably the best driver on the grid but Vettel has beaten him for the last 3 years because of a car advantage. That is why people have doubts about Vettel. From the comment you've posted above it is apparent that the same should apply to the current grid.

Going a few steps further, when Vettel didn't have the significant advantage he has now he was beaten by Di Resta, so again, queries about his abilities.

Of the current grid, the only person to beat the best driver on the grid using equal machinery has been Hamilton, so again, it is logical to infer that Hamilton in the same machinery is comparable to Alonso.

Therfore to summarise, I believe it is accurate and factual to suggest Hamilton and Alonso are the class of the field and Vettel has only been a triple world champion because of his car advantage using the logic you have applied to Mansell and Hill.

I'm glad we've finally cleared that up martial.

man unt devil

dear dear me manx how the fluck did this get round to vettel again when my topic had nothing what so ever to do with vettel -

it made my brain ache just trying to decipher that little lot , i prefer to live in the real world not in the world of hypothetical fairytale fantasy land of fairytale scenarios

however lets leave your little make believe fairyland scenarios and get back in the real world ,
i prefer to take the opinion of a genuine expert of the very highest calibre who has worked up close and personal with various all time great drivers

read and weep manx

http://www.espn.co.uk/redbull/motorsport/story/46722.html

I'm afraid you cannot make me change my opinions on this matter martial.