Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was just thinking about Carl Froch the boxer, he was a candidate for the award but hasn't got a particularly effervescent 'personality'. No reason why he should have though, he punches people's faces in for a living - I just think the award is mistitled, better would be 'sportsperson of the year' or something like that which implies it's down to your achievements as opposed to your ability to captivate an audience with your witicisms, at your leisure.
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/52481-spoty-2014/#findComment-807050
Share on other sites

It's either ridiculous that it's still got 'personality' in the title, or ridiculous that people complain when it's given to someone with no discernible personality.


Surely it's never been and never should have been about personality; it's completely about sporting achievement.


It's also faintly ridiculous that Hamilton got it. I love F1 but as Ian Poulter has pointed out, Hamilton has only had one opponent to beat all season- the person that has the other best car. McLaren should have won the team award, McIlroy should without question have won the individual award.


The general bleedin' public eh?!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/52481-spoty-2014/#findComment-807059
Share on other sites

Parkdrive Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> KidKruger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > As if there's some natural correlation between sports and having a personality.

>

> Just ask Andy Murray ;)


Actually, the year they gave to Nigel Mansell was the year the realised the 'personality' bit was optional.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/52481-spoty-2014/#findComment-807072
Share on other sites

It's weird - some years it seems to be given to people who actually haven't achieved much (plucky British losers etc).


So you assume the "personality" element is there to compensate for that.


Then again, Damon Hill won when he lost in F1 so god know what the criteria is/was.


Shocking that Ronnie O'Sullivan, the greatest player to ever pick up a cue has never even been nominated, let alone won.


I think it's the same for Phil Taylor.


Both have "personality" and have dominated their sports - what gives?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/52481-spoty-2014/#findComment-807105
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Disclaimer, some of the later  SMB stuff is insipid but I like this.  I
    • I'm pleased to have gone onto a meter as it has saved us money.  When first fitted we found there was a leak and TW replaced the old lead pipe with plastic (we had to pay the last few metres into the house but some geezer did this at a fair price). No doubt others have positive experiences too.   Otherwise I'm no fan of the private utilities but that shouldn't colour our opinions.  
    • I recall that when the meter was installed it it was not set at zero. Presumably it had come from elsewhere or was a recon one.    Same here. I phoned TW today to ask if there was a meter at our property (even though I knew there was) and I was told quite categorically that there was not and that our bill was calculated on RV value When I asked why we used to get our meter readings shown online in our account, It they could not provide an explanation. Our RV value according to TW is 547 which equated to a 4-5 bedroom property with a large garden. With just two of us living here then our consumption must be well below the expected volume. Given the facts, I am totally convinced no that TW have an algorithm that hides the actual meter readings when the actual consumption is below the RV based consumption suggesting they are a bunch of shameless rogues!!  
    • Let me get this straight . The OP  was hit from behind by a small person out of control on a bike whose father was not only not watching him but could not watch him, because he was not in a position to see him. Are you disputing that "side of the story"? Why would someone who rarely posts on here come on here to post that? Then the OP remonstrated with the father. What would you have done in that situation?  You seem absolutely determined to put the OP in the wrong.  What exactly is your motive in doing that? Do you always assume that someone is lying when you haven't heard "both sides of the story"? Do you always disbelieve anything you are told because there are so "many possibilities"? The father in question is hardly likely to come on here to defend his lack of care of his child, is he?  And btw there were no "casual onlookers". The people who laughed were apparently the child's father and those with him. Who did not witness  "someone being smacked into by a 4 year old on a bike" because the child was out of their line of sight. It seems that you can't even get right something which is posted on a forum and there in writing for all to see. Let's hope you are never called as a witness in a court case.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...