But it is a logical fallacy to state there is only one CORRECT way. And there is no logic to this. Doing so doesn’t make sense. There are clear logical flaws to doing this.

No, because Douglas didn’t get up for the big fights, he got up for one fight. Tyson did it against bigger names, more times. No he wasnt, the statistics show that. Leon Spinks and Joe Frazier were big enough ‘box office’ to start with. Ali struggled against Norton 3 times, and Berbick and Holmes was when he was spent at the end of his career, be realistic.
And a lot of people will argue that Ali is better than Marciano because whilst Marciano won a lot of fights against no-name fighters, Ali fought and beat some of the best fighters ever, that’s why his losses against a few average fighters are forgotten. And Sinfield is consistently good in the big games, Sinfields record in the big games is unbelievable. If Leeds had lost all the finals they have contested then Sinfield wouldn’t be the name he is. Sinfield is outstanding in big games. That’s why he is the player he is. His ability to control a big game, and to lead his team to victory in them. If he wasn’t, he wouldn’t be the player he is. When Sinfield hangs up his boots, it will the semi’s and Grand Final wins he lead Leeds to that will be remembered, no-one will care the slightest that Leeds lost against Salford or Wigan one time in mid-season.

Its nothing to do with change being inherently scary. Its that people like the championship being one by the two best teams squaring off in front of a packed crowd on a Saturday night in the last game of the season rather than a Sunday afternoon at craven park. They want the title decided by a big game, by an intense game rather than grinding out results in your run-of-the-mill games. There is no need to prize consistency over quality.

He didn't

He said in his opinion it's the correct way.

Your quote that "Whereas nobody, bar Wigan fans think Wigan are the champions and the history books will agree that they arent." isn't correct either.

I'm a Wigan fan and I don't think were champions? In fact I'd guess that 99% of Wigan fans understand they're not champions.
I'm sure that there are many Warrington fans who thought they were champions in 2011 (And the majority realised they weren't)? So I'm assuming those people thought that Wigan were champions in 2012 so why not mention them?

Basically they are arguing that they would rather see the team that finishes Top be crowned champions and they are given their reasons as to why they think it's the best way.

Your defending the way it's done now

Both of you have a vested interest in defending their stance and your both entitled to it However I think some of your twisting of words/statements to back up your argument is a bit Rich.

Just remind me, how many Challenge Cups has he won again? International series? Or aren't they big games?

He won a challenge cup as part of the 99 squad even though he didn’t play in the final, and he has one international series win and one other international series 'victory' which was in reality a draw.

there isnt a 'correct' way. There are many different ways, which one you prefer is an opinion, but it is wrong to suggest the others arent correct.
Because they dont seem to exist, If there were a lot of Wire fans who thought they were champions last year, or St's fans who thought they were champions in 07 or 08, they werent particularly vocal about it.
My vested interest is purely that i think the champion side should be proven in the heat of battle. I think our champion side should be the one which is able to perform to the very highest level, the one which is the best, not the one which is the most consistent. I certainly think that the Leeds sides in 2005, 2007 and 2008 were superior to the one which in 2009 lifted both the LLS and the SL trophy despite the fact the 2009 one was the most consistent.

My vested interest is purely that i think the champion side should be proven in the heat of battle. I think our champion side should be the one which is able to perform to the very highest level, the one which is the best, not the one which is the most consistent. I certainly think that the Leeds sides in 2005, 2007 and 2008 were superior to the one which in 2009 lifted both the LLS and the SL trophy despite the fact the 2009 one was the most consistent.'"

If you don't think there weren't Wire fans suggesting the same thing this time last year you couldn't be more wrong. In fairness once again it wouldn't mean that ALL Warrington fans thought the same (Unlike your genaralisations about Wigan fans earlier) just that there were lots of musings around the same subject.

In Wigans instance however I believe the debate is more to do with how we as fans see how the competition SHOULD be set up, not in the main that we have been robbbed of a title (There may be the odd fan who thinks that but they are the minority).

FWIW my opinion is not too disimilar to yours in terms of how the competion should be won, I too also believe the Play offs would (If set up correctly) provide a true test of a teams ability to win the most important games "When it matters" HOWEVER (And before anyone jumps down my throat defenidng the 1st past the post method) what I think is proving a hard balance to find is rewarding both parts of the same competition.
IMO currently there is very little reward for "Busting a gut" through the 27 rounds and I belive this is leading to a lot of disillusion with some fans regarding the set up.
It would be very difficult to argue that this LEEDS team of the last 2 years could have in fact finished even lower in the regular rounds and still won the GF as to be honest they would in all likelihood have still won there 2 lead up games to the Qualifying Semi and it would hardly have affected there Semi final chances.
This means to me there is little if no reward for Leeds finishing 5th over 8th? Which again is just another extension of the argument of finishing 3rd/4th to finishing 5th.

If the competion set up was that anyone finishing 5th or 6th would have to play 3rd or 4th away from home and then if they lost had to play 7th/8th at home whilst they'd had a week off in essence you could argue they'd be better off finishing 7th or 8th?

That's the problem IMO

As Grimmy alluded to earlier, the only way to put more meaning into the regular season games and then again find out the Team that can win "When it Matters" is IMO to Reward the team that is consistent throughout the season by and Handicap significantly the teams that couldn't do that throughout the year to really test their ability to "Win when it matters" by making it as hard as possible (Pro rata for how low you finish in the Comp) for them to do so.
The current set up doesn't do that IMO.

There are plenty who make the point that a team finishing the regular season in 5th then winning the grand final reduces the sport's credibility. Illogically, plenty of them then make the case for devaluing the WCC by opening it up to the top 3 or 4. Personally, I've no problem with a team winning from 5th but I agree with those who suggest that the regular season should be given greater importance. So why not have a 4 team WCC featuring the GF winners and hubcap winners against their Australian counterparts? And if any team does the double, the team finishing the regular season in 2nd participates.
That would give GF and hubcap winners some sort of parity, retain the elite nature of the WCC and avoid the sort of fixture overload that would occur if a 6 or 8 side WCC format was adopted.

I don't have a problem with the play offs as a concept and accept that it gives interest up to the last day of the season. I don't think Billy Boston would give up his Championship winners medal from 1960 when Wigan finished fourth in the league some 14 points behind the leaders Saints.

What I can't accept is that the team who finisher 5th gets the EASIEST game in Round one, and then gets to play the team who have had the HARDEST game in Round one in the next round.

I also don't think that the team finishing second should get exactly the same benefit as the team finishing top.

This.

But that's exactly what YOU'RE doing! You're arguing your way is correct and any others aren't. What's the difference?

As for your second assertion; in that case we may as well do away with the league altogether. There is simply no point to it. You've basically described a cup competition. In fact you've pretty much described the Challenge Cup. It was my understanding that the league was designed, not as a cup competition, but to determine which is the best team over the course of a whole season where each team plays every other. That is not a cup competition which is more about the luck of the draw and who, as you say, 'can get up for it on the day' (sic). If you want two cup competitions why didn't you say? That is a whole different argument and would have saved a lot of time.

Mate, you're doing it again. Last time I said there was only one way, now I am saying there is only one CORRECT way, neither of which I have ACTUALLY said. Which is it? Make your mind up! As a matter of fact I have done no more or no less that you; namely given my opinion of which would be the better way. If that's illogical as you state, then we are both equally guilty.

Douglas didn't get up for one fight. He didn't get a shot at the title by being 'bum of the month'. He beat, among others, Trevor Berbick, Greg Page, Oliver McCall and Mike Tyson on his way to becoming undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. The fact that he was inconsistent and lost other fights he shouldn't have was exactly my point! You also seem to be agreeing that Mike Tyson's consistancy is what marks him out as the better fighter despite losing to Douglas. You're beginning to argue against yourself. Not sure what you hope to prove by that but hey! Knock yourself out... (pun intended! haha)

Are you serious???? Ali was the most consistent performer of his generation! It was 32 fights before he lost a single fight (in what has been described since as 'the fight of the century') and 43 before he lost again! In fact those were his only losses in 57 fights up to what was universally described as his decline (where he lost 3 of his last 4 fights) As this was later seen to be due to the onset of Parkinson's I think we can excuse him this lapse!! Mate, I accused you earlier of rewriting history but you've seriously outdone yourself this time! To be honest, I'm not sure there's much point in continuing the debate if you're twisting facts to this degree just to try and shoehorn them to suit your argument. On a personal note, and as a sports fan, I think you should hang your head in shame at this slight on possibly the greatest sportsman who ever lived. Just my opinion of course....

4) Bring in a new rule that only Wigan Warriors are allowed to be champions.

Why? Are no one else capable of topping the league? Sorry for my misunderstanding but I could have sworn Warrington did last year, not to mention Saints and yourselves in recent seasons. Go on...explain. This should be interesting!

Quote: Phuzzy "Why? Are no one else capable of topping the league? Sorry for my misunderstanding but I could have sworn Warrington did last year, not to mention Saints and yourselves in recent seasons. Go on...explain. This should be interesting! Warrington did indeed win the league last year but there didn't seem to be the same fervour for revamping the comp when they were knocked out of the playoffs, at least not on here. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=509953&tsmp=1350142495&start=20 Put yourself in the position of other fans and you'll probably see where their cynicism arises. FWIW I do believe a revamp would improve matters, hubcap winners and GF winners to go into a 4 team WCC which would increase the reward for achieving the former feat. If a team does the double then league runner up gets in too. I'd support a reversion to 5 teams too.

Quote: Phuzzy "Why? Are no one else capable of topping the league? Sorry for my misunderstanding but I could have sworn Warrington did last year, not to mention Saints and yourselves in recent seasons. Go on...explain. This should be interesting! Warrington did indeed win the league last year but there didn't seem to be the same fervour for revamping the comp when they were knocked out of the playoffs, at least not on here. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=509953&tsmp=1350142495&start=20 Put yourself in the position of other fans and you'll probably see where their cynicism arises. FWIW I do believe a revamp would improve matters, hubcap winners and GF winners to go into a 4 team WCC which would increase the reward for achieving the former feat. If a team does the double then league runner up gets in too. I'd support a reversion to 5 teams too.