BBC Sports Personality

[The Baron]

600,000 people voted. I have no idea about the popularity of the sport itself, but I guess people have taken to her when they have seen her. I think she is world and european champion in her field. Thats a pretty good accomplishment, whereas boxing world championships etc are degraded by the numerous titles.

At the end of the day unless you think the BBC has fixed the votes they cant be held for who gets this award.

I dont think a boxer should have won it either TBH. I just think that the BBC is royalist and the Royals will always have an advantage as they have a following before they've even kicked a ball or been on a horse.
Never has there been a more obvious choice (in Clarke) in a year of sporting mediocrity in the major sports.

I dont understand where the connection is in that part?

I think as many are anti as pro royals - especailly those who are likely to watch that program.

Perhaps some false quotes that were attributed to Clarke about not wanting to win, or the story in the NOTW of Sunday morning had an effect also. I think most years there is a clear cut winner based on performance and so it usually runs to plan. This year it was based on things other than performance and has proved more difficult to read.

The connection is simple. The BBC handpicks it's sports and people for this award.

Phil Taylor was invited this year because he spoke out last year about not being invited previously. He's an 11 time World Champion. Explain that one to me please!

I don't know how much more obvious the BBC can be!

Overweight, unsophisticated, unattractive 11 time World Champion Vs Pretty, posh, royal lovely horsey lady.

One has been invited once (off his own back) the other wins the major award first time.

Not rocket science is it?

[Rooky9]

600,000 people voted. I have no idea about the popularity of the sport itself, but I guess people have taken to her when they have seen her. I think she is world and european champion in her field. Thats a pretty good accomplishment, whereas boxing world championships etc are degraded by the numerous titles.

At the end of the day unless you think the BBC has fixed the votes they cant be held for who gets this award.

I dont think a boxer should have won it either TBH. I just think that the BBC is royalist and the Royals will always have an advantage as they have a following before they've even kicked a ball or been on a horse.
Never has there been a more obvious choice (in Clarke) in a year of sporting mediocrity in the major sports.

I dont understand where the connection is in that part?

I think as many are anti as pro royals - especailly those who are likely to watch that program.

Perhaps some false quotes that were attributed to Clarke about not wanting to win, or the story in the NOTW of Sunday morning had an effect also. I think most years there is a clear cut winner based on performance and so it usually runs to plan. This year it was based on things other than performance and has proved more difficult to read.

The connection is simple. The BBC handpicks it's sports and people for this award.

Phil Taylor was invited this year because he spoke out last year about not being invited previously. He's an 11 time World Champion. Explain that one to me please!

I don't know how much more obvious the BBC can be!

Overweight, unsophisticated, unattractive 11 time World Champion Vs Pretty, posh, royal lovely horsey lady.

One has been invited once (off his own back) the other wins the major award first time.

Not rocket science is it?

Not really needed.
With the exception of Phil Taylor, where there is an obvious hisoric conflict witht he darts split, I dont think there are many people if any who miss out on the opportunity to be voted for. Anyone with a real chance of winning would be in the shortlist otherwise there would be an outcry.

The BBC does not handpick the people. I believe in recent years even the shortlist is created from the publics suggestions. (I seem to remember an advert asfter a MOTd about it a few months back).

The link between Overweight, unsophisticated, unattractive 11 time World Champion Vs Pretty, posh, royal lovely horsey lady may be true, but that is a judgement on the voters not the BBC.

....Anyway neither Darts nor Horseriding is a sport!

[The Baron]

600,000 people voted. I have no idea about the popularity of the sport itself, but I guess people have taken to her when they have seen her. I think she is world and european champion in her field. Thats a pretty good accomplishment, whereas boxing world championships etc are degraded by the numerous titles.

At the end of the day unless you think the BBC has fixed the votes they cant be held for who gets this award.

I dont think a boxer should have won it either TBH. I just think that the BBC is royalist and the Royals will always have an advantage as they have a following before they've even kicked a ball or been on a horse.
Never has there been a more obvious choice (in Clarke) in a year of sporting mediocrity in the major sports.

I dont understand where the connection is in that part?

I think as many are anti as pro royals - especailly those who are likely to watch that program.

Perhaps some false quotes that were attributed to Clarke about not wanting to win, or the story in the NOTW of Sunday morning had an effect also. I think most years there is a clear cut winner based on performance and so it usually runs to plan. This year it was based on things other than performance and has proved more difficult to read.

The connection is simple. The BBC handpicks it's sports and people for this award.

Phil Taylor was invited this year because he spoke out last year about not being invited previously. He's an 11 time World Champion. Explain that one to me please!

I don't know how much more obvious the BBC can be!

Overweight, unsophisticated, unattractive 11 time World Champion Vs Pretty, posh, royal lovely horsey lady.

One has been invited once (off his own back) the other wins the major award first time.

Not rocket science is it?

Not really needed.
With the exception of Phil Taylor, where there is an obvious hisoric conflict witht he darts split, I dont think there are many people if any who miss out on the opportunity to be voted for. Anyone with a real chance of winning would be in the shortlist otherwise there would be an outcry.

The BBC does not handpick the people. I believe in recent years even the shortlist is created from the publics suggestions. (I seem to remember an advert asfter a MOTd about it a few months back).

The link between Overweight, unsophisticated, unattractive 11 time World Champion Vs Pretty, posh, royal lovely horsey lady may be true, but that is a judgement on the voters not the BBC.

....Anyway neither Darts nor Horseriding is a sport!

Ok the "Not rocket science is it?" was my attempt at showing how obvious the BBC's link to the Royals is. If it offended I apologise - I'm just amazed that some people think that this is not the case.

"The link between Overweight, unsophisticated, unattractive 11 time World Champion Vs Pretty, posh, royal lovely horsey lady may be true, but that is a judgement on the voters not the BBC."

It's not really seeing as the BBC haven't even promoted the WDO darts champions and that is shown on the BBC! They don't like darts full stop PDC, WDO, whatever. That is handpicking a sport in my view. Darts organisation split or not!

People vote according to the coverage and promotion they see. Phil Taylor will never win that award thanks to the BBC NOT the public.

[Rooky9]

I appreciate the link between the BBc and the Royals, afteer all they are funded by them through their government. I just dont think that it could have effected this vote. The time given to each candidate seemed pretty fair.

The BBc probably 'don't like' darts as a direct result of viewing figures. That is what they are interested in.

From the promotion I saw there was never a candidate other than Clarke.

[The Baron]

I would guess darts is more watched than whatever it is ZP does! That really is a guess though.

[Rooky9]

But there are no english champions in the form of darts that the BBC shows.... They would have to folk out to Sky for the Entourage for Phil!

I dont think The power would have won it this year - he only did what he does every year!

[Rooky9]

The Phil Taylor thing is probably a sole case

[The Baron]

But there are no english champions in the form of darts that the BBC shows.... They would have to folk out to Sky for the Entourage for Phil!

I dont think The power would have won it this year - he only did what he does every year!

Steve Beaton, Ted Hanky off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more too during Taylor's 11yr reign.

Winning multiple titles is an even better excuse to win something!

[The Baron]

The Phil Taylor thing is probably a sole case

True but there are still gonna be many more deserving, more watched, more cared about sports and champions than ZP - IMO of course.

[barhell]

Personally as a cycling fan Nicole Cooke should have had it.

[boldie]

The Phil Taylor thing is probably a sole case

True but there are still gonna be many more deserving, more watched, more cared about sports and champions than ZP - IMO of course.

yes but then a footieplayer would always win it.

[Jon MW]

...
True but there are still gonna be many more deserving, more watched, more cared about sports and champions than ZP - IMO of course.

In reverse order:

(1)

... more cared about ...

  - so what you're suggesting is that the award shouldn't have anything to do with talent or achievement, but should just be a popularity contest?

(2)

... more watched...

  - and it should only be open to the biggest sports? So we discount curling, badmington, squash, archery and all the other 100's and 100's of minority sports.

(3)

...more deserving...

  - She's the World and European champion! What more do you want?

[Rooky9]

I agree with what you have there Jon. I think what Baron is saying is we have world champions in things like Darts that have never been recognised by the award.

Darts and Snooker suffer because they arent really world wide sports (though sparadically they may cover the world). These sports are dominated by the British and so it is nothing new when one of them becomes world champion.

[Jon MW]

I agree with what you have there Jon. I think what Baron is saying is we have world champions in things like Darts that have never been recognised by the award.

Darts and Snooker suffer because they arent really world wide sports (though sparadically they may cover the world). These sports are dominated by the British and so it is nothing new when one of them becomes world champion.

Darts and Snooker players have been nominated and in the running down the years which shows recognition of their achievements. I think the subjective judgement that their achievement wasn't quite as good as somebody elses in their sport is a moot point after this.

And Steve Davis won it in 1988.

[The Baron]

...
True but there are still gonna be many more deserving, more watched, more cared about sports and champions than ZP - IMO of course.

In reverse order:

(1)

... more cared about ...

  - so what you're suggesting is that the award shouldn't have anything to do with talent or achievement, but should just be a popularity contest?

(2)

... more watched...

  - and it should only be open to the biggest sports? So we discount curling, badmington, squash, archery and all the other 100's and 100's of minority sports.

(3)

...more deserving...

  - She's the World and European champion! What more do you want?

1) It's already a popularity contest - that is my point and the problem IMO.

2) It should be open to every sport but let's not give it to ONE minor sport when people should be recognised in EVERY minor sport.

3) She's HAS made a great achievement - there is no denying this but there are other people who have achieved more and NOT been recognised.