Ranking Our Champions

[starkravenmad2]

been our problem for nearly 20 years our best players were good but not great.seems our best players over that period were really very good 2nd tier players but sadly had to be our best players due to lack of a star or in some cases lack of a coach with ideas but generally both of those reasons

[mightytiges]

I think only one Richmond player ever won a brownlow medal. Maybe Bill Morris.

Roy Wright won 2 in the 1950s, Stan Judkins one in the 30s and Ian Stewart was our last when he won his third brownlow as a Tiger in 1971. It's been a while although wasn't Raines and even Cambo (in 95) favourites one time but didn't end up with a single vote  .

As for 95. By the time the finals came around we were a freezerless and Richoless side that had won only 4 and half of its last 11 H/A games. Despite a couple of brave efforts against the Dons, in hindsight we were gone by July.

When you look back at 95 we remember fondly the first half of the year when we kicked everyones backside apart from receiving a caning by the Cats (they were definitely our bogey team at that time). We had some ripper wins against sides we always lost to during the dark times. Bet the Hawks for the first time in 10 years in  slog at Waverley, thumped reigning premiers West Coast by a lazy 10 goals at Princess Park and that Monday night mauling of the Roos where we kicked the first 6 goals in 10 minutes to say (as it turned out wrongly) that we were back in town for the first time in 13 years! It just felt good to win after all those years of failure and we put our "top" players wrongly up on a pedestal and kept faith with them after just one good year (sounds familiar  ). Problem was despite Richo returning in 96, blokes like Wigney, Naish, Tape, etc... never got anywhere near their 95 form again and we as a Club became satisfied with getting "near enough" so another 10 years of mediocrity followed. 

[JohnF]

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Richo and Free didn't get injured that year.

That we lost by 90 points to Geelong makes me sceptical in believing that we were only one or two good players away from taking the premiership.

We had a great first half of the year but hey, don't we always get off to a good start before crashing and burning mid year?

[1980]

I think only one Richmond player ever won a brownlow medal. Maybe Bill Morris.

Roy Wright won 2 in the 1950s, Stan Judkins one in the 30s and Ian Stewart was our last when he won his third brownlow as a Tiger in 1971. It's been a while although wasn't Raines and even Cambo (in 95) favourites one time but didn't end up with a single vote  .

As for 95. By the time the finals came around we were a freezerless and Richoless side that had won only 4 and half of its last 11 H/A games. Despite a couple of brave efforts against the Dons, in hindsight we were gone by July.

When you look back at 95 we remember fondly the first half of the year when we kicked everyones backside apart from receiving a caning by the Cats (they were definitely our bogey team at that time). We had some ripper wins against sides we always lost to during the dark times. Bet the Hawks for the first time in 10 years in  slog at Waverley, thumped reigning premiers West Coast by a lazy 10 goals at Princess Park and that Monday night mauling of the Roos where we kicked the first 6 goals in 10 minutes to say (as it turned out wrongly) that we were back in town for the first time in 13 years! It just felt good to win after all those years of failure and we put our "top" players wrongly up on a pedestal and kept faith with them after just one good year (sounds familiar  ). Problem was despite Richo returning in 96, blokes like Wigney, Naish, Tape, etc... never got anywhere near their 95 form again and we as a Club became satisfied with getting "near enough" so another 10 years of mediocrity followed. 

Of course Ian Stewart. Did Morris even win one?

I think that's a pretty good summary of our 1995 season. But we had more than the Cats as a bogey team. Essendon, North and the Hawks used to do us over every year. And we beat all 3.

How many OER posters were at the game we beat WC at Princess Park. I was going friggn nuts in the last quarter.

How many were there when we draw against the bummers and Maxy did his shoulder? How many times were we expected to fall apart, but kept coming back in the game?

And how great was it to see Scotty Turner keep Jason Dunstall goaless at Waverley, after years of him kicking 15 goals regularly against us?

Can anyone name me another year since 1982 Richmond supporters didnt have more than one game to cheer about? There was enough there to build on. So we got rid of the coach. There's Richmond footy club for you.

[1980]

Thats a different argument for me. If Tyson had retired from boxing the day after he went down to Buster Douglas, he'd be remembered as boxing's all time greatest and most feared boxer. Now he's just remembered for biting ppl's ears off.

I saw that guy fight, and he was just awesome. He'd won the match even before entering the ring. Thats how scared his opponents were. If he'd retired at his prime, instead of persisting at embarrassing himself over many more years, he'd be one of the greats.

Tyson at his prime was a better boxer than Holyfield. If his head was right, Holyfield and the rest would be too scared to even ask for a title shot. He's the classic example of a champion that kept trying to reclaim what he'd lost, and didnt now it could never come back. You cant be the kind of fighter Tyson was in his prime forever. Age, and in his case, dementia, catches up with you.

But gee the fights I saw him in against Holmes, Spinks, Tucker. He was the most frightening thing I've ever seen

Tyson, in his prime, got dealt with by Buster Douglas. He may have taken Douglas easy and not trained as hard for the fight as he should have, but he was still at the peak of his powers. If he retired before the Buster Douglas fight he would be remembered as a legend who could not be beaten. If he retired a day after the Buster Douglas fight his stock would have plummetted dramatically.

Tyson was never a better boxer than Holyfield. He was a wrecking force with his power, but his boxing skills were never first grade, which is why he got picked apart by him when Holyfield absorbed all his wild looping power shots. That's not to even mention that Holyfield was considered shot at the time of their first fight (though I admit, Tyson was past his prime too, but still was considered as good as ever at the time).

Tyson was similar to George Foreman for me. Both absolutely brutal punchers who scared the schit out of every single man they entered the ring with. Both were considered unbeatable, but if you could take their power, you were a very very good chance of boxing the crap out of them, even if you had limited skills.

I don't doubt that Tyson would have had a better career if he wasn't a headcase. But he was always a psychotic mauler, and what was his strength, his brutal power and wildness, was his weakness as well (becuase hsi skills were never refined - and the way he threw them, they were unrefinable).

By the time Tyson got around to fighting Buster Douglas, he'd run out of fighters prepared or qualified to get in the ring with him. He'd been through the entire list of pretenders and challengers, and murdered every one of them.

Which is why he got done over by Douglas. He'd no more motivation. It happens to every champion in any sport. Staying at the top is much harder than getting to the top, because they've lost the hunger.

Holyfield would never have lasted one round with Tyson in his prime. Which is not to say that I dont respect the guy. I always wanted him to beat Tyson. I'm one of those guilty of hating Tyson when he was the champ.

[mightytiges]

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Richo and Free didn't get injured that year.

That we lost by 90 points to Geelong makes me sceptical in believing that we were only one or two good players away from taking the premiership.

If we still played Geelong in a knock-out final then it wouldn't have made any difference. They matched up on us well and we still would've been thrashed IMO. But we may have finished higher on the ladder with Freezer and Richo playing and won our first final and avoided the Cats altogether. We ran with the Blues who won 23 matches and only lost 2 for the whole year for 3 and half quarters without Free and Richo. So who knows. Unlike 2001 where there were clearly 3 sides totally out of our league, in 95 there was only Geelong who we weren't competitive against. A case of might of, couldabeen, only if,...but in the end it didn't happen  .    

[1980]

I agree, there's no argument that can be made that Campbell was as good as Hart or Bartlett. I was talking more with regards to the players that Campbell played with.

I just beleive that when you measure the bad, the good and the great performances of Richmond players in the last 15 years Campbell is the best we've had. Which doesn't mean he is great. I'm not arguing that.

But the club's been around for more than 15 years. And Campbell is not in the same league as a player as someone like Royce Hart. I'd argue that Freezer was a better captain than Campbell in the past 15 years. And I think most would argue that Knights was also a better capatain that could lead by example.

Doesnt really matter. We were arguing about whether great players are those that we remember for doing exceptional things, or those that played consistently. Somehow you managed to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again.  

[froars]

Somehow you managed to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again

 

[JohnF]

By the time Tyson got around to fighting Buster Douglas, he'd run out of fighters prepared or qualified to get in the ring with him. He'd been through the entire list of pretenders and challengers, and murdered every one of them.

Which is why he got done over by Douglas. He'd no more motivation. It happens to every champion in any sport. Staying at the top is much harder than getting to the top, because they've lost the hunger.

Holyfield would never have lasted one round with Tyson in his prime. Which is not to say that I dont respect the guy. I always wanted him to beat Tyson. I'm one of those guilty of hating Tyson when he was the champ.

I beg to differ here 1980. Though he did well in cleaning out a lot of ordinary fighters who were in their primes and some older washed up fighters like Holmes and smaller men like Spinks, guys like Holyfield rising from Cruiserweight and two young cats by the names of Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe were looming as the next legitimate challengers when Tyson went down to Douglas.

Tyson got complacent, I agree, but again, this is where consistency and longevity comes into the equation. This is why consistency and longevity are big part of greatness. Just like in football, many players have a good season or two or even three, but the real champions are the ones that are able to back it up and stay at the top of their game for a long duration of time. Corey Mckernan was a world beater in 1997. Does that make him a great player? Not on your life!

If Tyson was hungry as ever and was fighting Holyfield then he may have been able to win, but I wouldn't bet on it. Who has ever blown Holyfield out like you suggest Tyson would have? The man was a warrior and even when he did get spanked he never went down without a fight.

[1980]

By the time Tyson got around to fighting Buster Douglas, he'd run out of fighters prepared or qualified to get in the ring with him. He'd been through the entire list of pretenders and challengers, and murdered every one of them.

Which is why he got done over by Douglas. He'd no more motivation. It happens to every champion in any sport. Staying at the top is much harder than getting to the top, because they've lost the hunger.

Holyfield would never have lasted one round with Tyson in his prime. Which is not to say that I dont respect the guy. I always wanted him to beat Tyson. I'm one of those guilty of hating Tyson when he was the champ.

I beg to differ here 1980. Though he did well in cleaning out a lot of ordinary fighters who were in their primes and some older washed up fighters like Holmes and smaller men like Spinks, guys like Holyfield rising from Cruiserweight and two young cats by the names of Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe were looming as the next legitimate challengers when Tyson went down to Douglas.

Tyson got complacent, I agree, but again, this is where consistency and longevity comes into the equation. This is why consistency and longevity are big part of greatness. Just like in football, many players have a good season or two or even three, but the real champions are the ones that are able to back it up and stay at the top of their game for a long duration of time. Corey Mckernan was a world beater in 1997. Does that make him a great player? Not on your life!

If Tyson was hungry as ever and was fighting Holyfield then he may have been able to win, but I wouldn't bet on it. Who has ever blown Holyfield out like you suggest Tyson would have? The man was a warrior and even when he did get spanked he never went down without a fight.

Dont remember how many years Tyson was the champ until the Buster Douglas fight, but he fought everyone that was available and beat them. Not just beat them, destroyed them. It was considered an achievement not to be knocked out by Tyson and last the distance.

Like all great champions, he should have quit when he was on top. Look at any sport and the same issue comes up. Bjorn Borg was one of the greatest tennis players I've ever seen. So was McEnroe. To see them try comebacks was pitiful. Diego Maradona was the greatest soccer player the world has ever seen. After he tried a comeback after testing positive for drugs, he was as pathetic as Tyson. Jo Montana is the greatest ever quarterback in NFL. He tried to keep playing after the 49ers ditched him, and shared the same fate. How pathetic does Nick Faldo or Greg Norman look when they play golf these days? Carey at the Crows is a similar story.

Doesnt make any of them less the champions they were while they were on top. They just should have known when to quit.

Holyfield is no different. His doctors told him to give up boxing years ago due to heart problems. He kept  retiring and making comebacks.

At the end of the day, I've never seen Holyfield destroy opponents as consistently as Tyson did when he was the champ, not some clown with too many problems outside of the ring and should never have been allowed into it ever again. He's now tainted what achievements he had by the latter. But those that saw him fight, remember what an awesome spectacle he was in the ring. And Holyfield never was.

[mightytiges]

Did Morris even win one?

Yep.

How many OER posters were at the game we beat WC at Princess Park. I was going friggn nuts in the last quarter.

How many were there when we draw against the bummers and Maxy did his shoulder? How many times were we expected to fall apart, but kept coming back in the game?

I've told some people here this before. I was that party town Canberra   for most of the 95 season due to work. Similarly fate and work would have me overseas during August and September of 2001. Remember emailing the Club about getting GF tickets if by some miracle we bet Brisbane (I was arriving back in Oz GF eve). I probably would have fallen asleep through it anyway due to the jetlag  .

So for us to make the finals again it looks like I have to leave the state    .

Can anyone name me another year since 1982 Richmond supporters didnt have more than one game to cheer about?

Supporters fell in love with the 95 side not only because they made the finals but it was exciting footy to watch. We were a tough side following a simple gameplan and that compensated most of the time for any skill deficiences. Once Walls came in and tried to make us play a more possession type style a number of our players were exposed. As a result we then tried under Geischen and Frawley drafting "skilled" youngsters like Fiora and Pettifer lol and lost our toughness and hardness.

2001 would be the only other year comparable but as supporters we had a different mindset by then because of all the 9ths we had and in typical Spud fashion we never smashed sides. The last quarter against the Roos early on in the season is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

94 wasn't bad either. First time in a long time we finished outside the bottom 4. We had a chance to make the finals for the first time in 12 years but bombed out to the Blues and Cats in the last two rounds. A prelude to what was to come in 95.

[mightytiges]

But the club's been around for more than 15 years. And Campbell is not in the same league as a player as someone like Royce Hart. I'd argue that Freezer was a better captain than Campbell in the past 15 years. And I think most would argue that Knights was also a better capatain that could lead by example.

I would agree Freezer was easily a better captain than Cambo or Knights. In and under types can only lead by example. That's why we are now impressed by Cogs. I wouldn't consider Knighter's captaincy as anything to write home about. We never made the finals during that time. Knighter's last great year was 95. He was still very good for the next 3-4 years but he lost his pace as he got older. The early 90's was when he was at his prime IMO.

During the past 20 years I would say the Flea was our best player and best leader. Played well when we were a good side in the early 80s and played well when we were totally crap later on. IMO he would fit into the consistent category yet Tiger fans will long remember him as a champion.

[JohnF]

But the club's been around for more than 15 years. And Campbell is not in the same league as a player as someone like Royce Hart. I'd argue that Freezer was a better captain than Campbell in the past 15 years. And I think most would argue that Knights was also a better capatain that could lead by example.

Doesnt really matter. We were arguing about whether great players are those that we remember for doing exceptional things, or those that played consistently. Somehow you managed to make the thread about Wayne Campbell again.  

lmfaoooo, I mentioned Wayne Campbell because he was an example that was relevant to the discussion on consistency and the spectacular as criteria for greatness (even though it was somewhat irrelevant becuase Campbell was never great.) Anyway, any Campbell discussion is good value    

[JohnF]

Dont remember how many years Tyson was the champ until the Buster Douglas fight, but he fought everyone that was available and beat them. Not just beat them, destroyed them. It was considered an achievement not to be knocked out by Tyson and last the distance.

Like all great champions, he should have quit when he was on top. Look at any sport and the same issue comes up. Bjorn Borg was one of the greatest tennis players I've ever seen. So was McEnroe. To see them try comebacks was pitiful. Diego Maradona was the greatest soccer player the world has ever seen. After he tried a comeback after testing positive for drugs, he was as pathetic as Tyson. Jo Montana is the greatest ever quarterback in NFL. He tried to keep playing after the 49ers ditched him, and shared the same fate. How pathetic does Nick Faldo or Greg Norman look when they play golf these days? Carey at the Crows is a similar story.

Doesnt make any of them less the champions they were while they were on top. They just should have known when to quit.

Holyfield is no different. His doctors told him to give up boxing years ago due to heart problems. He kept  retiring and making comebacks.

At the end of the day, I've never seen Holyfield destroy opponents as consistently as Tyson did when he was the champ, not some clown with too many problems outside of the ring and should never have been allowed into it ever again. He's now tainted what achievements he had by the latter. But those that saw him fight, remember what an awesome spectacle he was in the ring. And Holyfield never was.

Tyson held forms of the heavyweight belt for just over three years before he met Buster. Tyson didn't stay on past his prime, he got lazy in the middle of it, and that's a whole different story. He was 24 years old.

Let's look at who Tyson defeated in his reign as champion: Berbick, Holmes (who was ancient at the time), Spinks (a lightheavyweight pretty much out of his depth) and Frank "Snail" Bruno. Yeah, he crushed them, but beating those guys does not make you great. He then he went on to lose to Buster Douglas, who got knocked the eff out by Holyfield in one round in his next fight and was never heard of again.

It's not only a worry that Tyson didn't reign long enough, it's that he didn't really beat any excellent (let alone great) heavyweights in their prime.

Tyson, although he was an excellent fighter with awesome power, had major flaws in technique, and he was more spectacle than substance. He was a media production that had everyone believing he was unbeatable because he was knocking (mostly) bums out left right and centre.

Holyfield never destroyed opponents like Tyson did, but Holyfield's greatness lied beneath the surface which wasn't evident or marketable as Tyson's gifts. He had more technical skill, determination, dedication and will to win than Tyson ever had, and it allowed him to compete with and beat better champions for a much longer period than Tyson did.

I wish the media would give recognition to the truly great fighters of the sport instead of looking for sensationalism and circus acts all the time.

The sport has had some great fighters in the last twenty five years, but you'd struggle to find any casual sports fan who knows anything about the likes of Pernell Whitaker, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roy Jones Jr., Marvin Hagler, Aaron Pryor, Alexis Arguello, Julio Cesar Chavez, Roberto Duran and Evander Holyfield.   

[1980]

I'm waiting for oxx to step in anytime now with an "enuff now"!