So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League records?
Thanks. I never claimed the two leagues were the same btw.
Compare and contrast can be a useful exercise sometimes.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 16 seconds ago
So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League records?
======================
Clearly not, as the circumstances of their respective formations are totally different.
The Premier League was not founded following a merger with a rival League.
In this respect, the point you are making is irrelevant.
The top flight league records date from 1888 to present.
How many League titles have Manchester United won? 20?? Not according to you, clearly.
What do you mean 'not according to you?'
I have always maintained the recognition of all time top flight records, just as I have been able to recognise the Premier League is different to the Football league, and thus can have it's own boundaries.
The whole inclusion of the NBA is irrelevant - as I have illustrated on numerous occasions- so of course any point I have made about the NBA is irrelevant to the discussion. As I said, you bringing the NBA into the discussion is as relevant as the Chewbacca Defence. My only discussion of the NBA has been to highlight how irrelevant to the discussion it is and I am glad you are now recognising this.
Why are you arguing about a point you deem irrelevant?
Beneath you this is.
Because someone brought it up as a point to the discussion.
That is how discussions work, someone brings up a topic and people debate it. Some bring evidence to the discussion and that itself it discussed for whatever merits it may or may not have.
Did you think you could just chuck a long narrative about the NBA to make a point and not expect it to be dismissed by others?
Quick question:
Are there any NBL records left to break?
It doesn't recognise the Lakers first title, for example.
Well thanks for clearing this all up then.
Records are records but some records aren't really records because these records were records when records were recorded in a different format and were recorded as records once but then discarded as records in favour of new records, in a new format, and these records became the only records but they're not really the genuine records even though they are recognised as records because they were records before these records that were recorded and relate to all-time records but the new records become the all-time records in the new format but these records are only records because they are recorded in a different way even though they are the same records, recorded in a different format and these records are distinct records as opposed to the old records and that these new records can co-exist with the old records and everyone can tell the difference between the records.
I think what Monkey is trying to express is that he is so limited of intelligence he can only comprehend the most basic of ideologies.
Throw in a second set of boundaries into the simple, established boundaries and his brain can no longer compute the information.
Quite sad really, but seemingly common on this website forum.
So....
Anyone else got any arguments as to why people cannot refer to Premier League records alongside the more established top flight records since 1888?
An improvement on 'it's not fair ' and 'the NBA have records from back when they started, in a similar way to the Premier Leagues records seperate from all time.'
^ DJ
Ideologies!
Your method of attempting to redefine someone's viewpoint to suit your own narrow understanding of the main issue is seemingly very common on this forum.
Quite sad really.
Throw in some totally erroneous point that has no relevance to the discussion and then level an accusation that the ensuing exchange is irrelevant is clearly evidence of a lack of intelligence.
Just to clarify, my previous post was a textualised manifestation of what I consider must be going through your mind based on the evidence of your previous posts.
My point was very clear and remains unaltered.
You continue to throw in your additional boundaries. And continue to create contradictions which you will struggle to extricate yourself from over a series of posts that lead absolutely nowhere.
To put this in the form of a simple metaphor. You're like a dog that's chasing it's own tale.
Carry on.
And this fixation with the NBA now is quite disturbing.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 16 seconds ago
So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League record
===============
You go girl!!!!
You are the one throwing in irrelevant information into the debate, and then when questioned on it you cannot come up with replies other than rather limited 'do your own research (because I can't defend my own posts)'.
No-one has come up with any argument as to why there cannot be Premier League records as well as all time top flight records. The opposite view has been explained, explained again and explained in contrast to the ludicrous introduction of the NBA debate.
And now you are accusing me of being fixated with the NBA - your only contribution to the discussion
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 38 minutes ago
So....
Anyone else got any arguments as to why people cannot refer to Premier League records alongside the more established top flight records since 1888?
An improvement on 'it's not fair ' and 'the NBA have records from back when they started, in a similar way to the Premier Leagues records seperate from all time.'
======================
Hey. That's an interesting hypothesis you've just formulated.
Predictably, it bears no relation to mine.
Sadly, very common on this forum. Apparently.
comment by Planet Monkey - SCORE. WIN. REPEAT....@ Kloppo... (U4158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 16 seconds ago
So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League record
===============
You go girl!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, failure to back up YOUR comments with an answer to a very simple question about statements you made.
You really have failed to make a point relevant to the discussion.
comment by Planet Monkey - SCORE. WIN. REPEAT....@ Kloppo... (U4158)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 38 minutes ago
So....
Anyone else got any arguments as to why people cannot refer to Premier League records alongside the more established top flight records since 1888?
An improvement on 'it's not fair ' and 'the NBA have records from back when they started, in a similar way to the Premier Leagues records seperate from all time.'
======================
Hey. That's an interesting hypothesis you've just formulated.
Predictably, it bears no relation to mine.
Sadly, very common on this forum. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And now you try and distance yourself from your own line of argument
Let us try again...
Why can't the Premier League (or anyone else for that matter) recognise records from the time it has controlled the top flight of English football?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
You are the one throwing in irrelevant information into the debate, and then when questioned on it you cannot come up with replies other than rather limited 'do your own research (because I can't defend my own posts)'.
No-one has come up with any argument as to why there cannot be Premier League records as well as all time top flight records. The opposite view has been explained, explained again and explained in contrast to the ludicrous introduction of the NBA debate.
And now you are accusing me of being fixated with the NBA - your only contribution to the discussion
===============================
What is this other than a complete distortion of how this 'debate' was initiated and then progressed.
The initial claim:
"The notion that football didn't exist before 1992 is totally ludicrous. In 1992 the First Division merely changed it's name to the EPL., does that mean that every record is expunged because the league changed it's name ? "
The response:
Records haven't been expunged, but the change in 1992 was more than just a name change. The Premier League is a seperate entity from the Football League, and as such has it's own set of records. However, top flight records still exist and supersede PL records.
No one tries to claim football didn't exist before 1992, that is the ludicrous claim. But people are intelligent enough to understand what happened in 1992 was not just a name change.
And, no. It is not the same as the NBA!
The truth is that the OP is full of inaccuracies, wild claims and lacks clear thought and reason.
And all arguments against the Premier League having it's own set of records alongside the all time records have gone the same way.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 10 hours, 35 minutes ago
It doesn't recognise the Lakers first title, for example
-----
That's irrelevant because Liverpool also have titles that are excluded for various reasons. It's a separate concept from the keeping of records.
I understand that the formation of a new organisation justifies the new time frame for records according to DJ. I don't see that as anything major. If you had different teams from the previous top flight perhaps, but changing the name and a few new people coming in to run the game is no great shakes for me.
This was a great debate IMO and I am now even more convinced that apart from their marketing requirements, the prem records are 'vain'.
Watching motd last week they said that Aguero is now the highest scoring south American in the premier league followed by Tevez and Suarez. I wanted to find out whether this is an all time record or prem only record but all the info I can find is from 1992 onwards. Anyone know or got a link? If it's an all time record, why refer to it as a prem record?
There were not many South Americans pre PL.
Obviously Ricky Villa and Ossie Ardiles are something of trailblazers, neither of whom were prolific.
Mirandinha springs to mind, but he didn't score many.
Sign in if you want to comment
Vardy - 1 more to EQUAL the record
Page 7 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 1/12/15
So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League records?
posted on 1/12/15
Thanks. I never claimed the two leagues were the same btw.
Compare and contrast can be a useful exercise sometimes.
posted on 1/12/15
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 16 seconds ago
So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League records?
======================
Clearly not, as the circumstances of their respective formations are totally different.
The Premier League was not founded following a merger with a rival League.
In this respect, the point you are making is irrelevant.
The top flight league records date from 1888 to present.
How many League titles have Manchester United won? 20?? Not according to you, clearly.
posted on 1/12/15
What do you mean 'not according to you?'
I have always maintained the recognition of all time top flight records, just as I have been able to recognise the Premier League is different to the Football league, and thus can have it's own boundaries.
The whole inclusion of the NBA is irrelevant - as I have illustrated on numerous occasions- so of course any point I have made about the NBA is irrelevant to the discussion. As I said, you bringing the NBA into the discussion is as relevant as the Chewbacca Defence. My only discussion of the NBA has been to highlight how irrelevant to the discussion it is and I am glad you are now recognising this.
posted on 1/12/15
Why are you arguing about a point you deem irrelevant?
Beneath you this is.
posted on 1/12/15
Because someone brought it up as a point to the discussion.
That is how discussions work, someone brings up a topic and people debate it. Some bring evidence to the discussion and that itself it discussed for whatever merits it may or may not have.
Did you think you could just chuck a long narrative about the NBA to make a point and not expect it to be dismissed by others?
posted on 1/12/15
Quick question:
Are there any NBL records left to break?
posted on 1/12/15
It doesn't recognise the Lakers first title, for example.
posted on 1/12/15
Well thanks for clearing this all up then.
Records are records but some records aren't really records because these records were records when records were recorded in a different format and were recorded as records once but then discarded as records in favour of new records, in a new format, and these records became the only records but they're not really the genuine records even though they are recognised as records because they were records before these records that were recorded and relate to all-time records but the new records become the all-time records in the new format but these records are only records because they are recorded in a different way even though they are the same records, recorded in a different format and these records are distinct records as opposed to the old records and that these new records can co-exist with the old records and everyone can tell the difference between the records.
posted on 1/12/15
I C
posted on 1/12/15
I think what Monkey is trying to express is that he is so limited of intelligence he can only comprehend the most basic of ideologies.
Throw in a second set of boundaries into the simple, established boundaries and his brain can no longer compute the information.
Quite sad really, but seemingly common on this website forum.
posted on 1/12/15
So....
Anyone else got any arguments as to why people cannot refer to Premier League records alongside the more established top flight records since 1888?
An improvement on 'it's not fair ' and 'the NBA have records from back when they started, in a similar way to the Premier Leagues records seperate from all time.'
posted on 1/12/15
^ DJ
Ideologies!
Your method of attempting to redefine someone's viewpoint to suit your own narrow understanding of the main issue is seemingly very common on this forum.
Quite sad really.
Throw in some totally erroneous point that has no relevance to the discussion and then level an accusation that the ensuing exchange is irrelevant is clearly evidence of a lack of intelligence.
Just to clarify, my previous post was a textualised manifestation of what I consider must be going through your mind based on the evidence of your previous posts.
My point was very clear and remains unaltered.
You continue to throw in your additional boundaries. And continue to create contradictions which you will struggle to extricate yourself from over a series of posts that lead absolutely nowhere.
To put this in the form of a simple metaphor. You're like a dog that's chasing it's own tale.
Carry on.
And this fixation with the NBA now is quite disturbing.
posted on 1/12/15
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 16 seconds ago
So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League record
===============
You go girl!!!!
posted on 1/12/15
You are the one throwing in irrelevant information into the debate, and then when questioned on it you cannot come up with replies other than rather limited 'do your own research (because I can't defend my own posts)'.
No-one has come up with any argument as to why there cannot be Premier League records as well as all time top flight records. The opposite view has been explained, explained again and explained in contrast to the ludicrous introduction of the NBA debate.
And now you are accusing me of being fixated with the NBA - your only contribution to the discussion
posted on 1/12/15
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 38 minutes ago
So....
Anyone else got any arguments as to why people cannot refer to Premier League records alongside the more established top flight records since 1888?
An improvement on 'it's not fair ' and 'the NBA have records from back when they started, in a similar way to the Premier Leagues records seperate from all time.'
======================
Hey. That's an interesting hypothesis you've just formulated.
Predictably, it bears no relation to mine.
Sadly, very common on this forum. Apparently.
posted on 1/12/15
comment by Planet Monkey - SCORE. WIN. REPEAT....@ Kloppo... (U4158)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 16 seconds ago
So, now answer my question...
Should we follow the NBA example and only recognise records in the top level of the professional game since that organisation took control and thus only recognise Premier League record
===============
You go girl!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, failure to back up YOUR comments with an answer to a very simple question about statements you made.
You really have failed to make a point relevant to the discussion.
posted on 1/12/15
comment by Planet Monkey - SCORE. WIN. REPEAT....@ Kloppo... (U4158)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 38 minutes ago
So....
Anyone else got any arguments as to why people cannot refer to Premier League records alongside the more established top flight records since 1888?
An improvement on 'it's not fair ' and 'the NBA have records from back when they started, in a similar way to the Premier Leagues records seperate from all time.'
======================
Hey. That's an interesting hypothesis you've just formulated.
Predictably, it bears no relation to mine.
Sadly, very common on this forum. Apparently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And now you try and distance yourself from your own line of argument
posted on 1/12/15
Let us try again...
Why can't the Premier League (or anyone else for that matter) recognise records from the time it has controlled the top flight of English football?
posted on 1/12/15
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
You are the one throwing in irrelevant information into the debate, and then when questioned on it you cannot come up with replies other than rather limited 'do your own research (because I can't defend my own posts)'.
No-one has come up with any argument as to why there cannot be Premier League records as well as all time top flight records. The opposite view has been explained, explained again and explained in contrast to the ludicrous introduction of the NBA debate.
And now you are accusing me of being fixated with the NBA - your only contribution to the discussion
===============================
What is this other than a complete distortion of how this 'debate' was initiated and then progressed.
posted on 1/12/15
The initial claim:
"The notion that football didn't exist before 1992 is totally ludicrous. In 1992 the First Division merely changed it's name to the EPL., does that mean that every record is expunged because the league changed it's name ? "
The response:
Records haven't been expunged, but the change in 1992 was more than just a name change. The Premier League is a seperate entity from the Football League, and as such has it's own set of records. However, top flight records still exist and supersede PL records.
No one tries to claim football didn't exist before 1992, that is the ludicrous claim. But people are intelligent enough to understand what happened in 1992 was not just a name change.
And, no. It is not the same as the NBA!
posted on 1/12/15
The truth is that the OP is full of inaccuracies, wild claims and lacks clear thought and reason.
And all arguments against the Premier League having it's own set of records alongside the all time records have gone the same way.
posted on 2/12/15
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 10 hours, 35 minutes ago
It doesn't recognise the Lakers first title, for example
-----
That's irrelevant because Liverpool also have titles that are excluded for various reasons. It's a separate concept from the keeping of records.
I understand that the formation of a new organisation justifies the new time frame for records according to DJ. I don't see that as anything major. If you had different teams from the previous top flight perhaps, but changing the name and a few new people coming in to run the game is no great shakes for me.
This was a great debate IMO and I am now even more convinced that apart from their marketing requirements, the prem records are 'vain'.
posted on 2/12/15
Watching motd last week they said that Aguero is now the highest scoring south American in the premier league followed by Tevez and Suarez. I wanted to find out whether this is an all time record or prem only record but all the info I can find is from 1992 onwards. Anyone know or got a link? If it's an all time record, why refer to it as a prem record?
posted on 2/12/15
There were not many South Americans pre PL.
Obviously Ricky Villa and Ossie Ardiles are something of trailblazers, neither of whom were prolific.
Mirandinha springs to mind, but he didn't score many.
Page 7 of 8
6 | 7 | 8