So, pray, how with a phone vote, did they know that Andy Murray would win to the point that they have Lennox Lewis there in Florida to present the main award to him??? Or do they have several trophies prepared?
Obviously the vote wasn't rigged but with a 1/4 million votes it's fairly obvious many of them were Scots. It peeves me greatly but it's become a meaningless award anyway.
TALBOT as about 8% of the population are Scots, would Scots nominees account for the same percentage of the votes if your opinion were correct? I think Murray got a wee bit more than that percentage on his own...
prudie: " It peeves me greatly but it's become a meaningless award anyway" - why because sometimes someone you don't agree withj wins? I'm often amazed by who does win but I'm not sure what's worse the public or the "experts" - In this case I think a panel would have gone to someone else simply because Murray won it 2 years ago. Of course fishing is a sport, ask Robson Green!
It's in the dictionary so it must be right :o)
" noun
1.
an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc."
The best definition of the difference between a sport and a pastime I've ever seen is: "One can smoke during a pastime activity, but not during a sporting one."
Even if you're a non-smoker, as I am, it's easy to see what is meant. So, golf, snooker etc are pastimes, while rugby, tennis etc are sports.
a show like this nicely showcases the year's sporting achievements in the uk and elsewhere. beyond that, the awarding of a "personality" prize is just entertainment; the BBC isn't bound by anything - let alone the law - in respecting any public vote it may or may not encourage, particularly if the public vote isn't as entertaining as their own choice.
Most of this thread argues about the definition of either sports or personality. I dont think any other winner than AM would evoke such contraversy (for the third time too). TTT it's not that I don't agree with it I plain don't like him. It's simply been a Scottish popularity vote.
prudie: "It peeves me greatly but it's become a meaningless award anyway." - just do not understand what you mean by this statement, what is meaningless? Is it any worse that the first winner? where previous winners of some era in some way more "meaningful"?? What has made it "meaningless"?
Not that it overly matters, but the only time Murray hasn't won the award in the last four years was two years ago. He won in 2013 (First Wimbledon) and 2015 (Davis Cup), but *not* two years ago in 2014.
Anyway, I figure that Olympic Gold, a second Wimbledon, undefeated in 24 matches at years-end, and current world #1 makes him a very worthy third-time winner. I too, though, was rather hoping that it might be someone else's turn, eg Nick Skelton or Luara Kenny.