Michael Jones Discussion

[An Tarbh]

Chiro's made his case, now it's up to you to decide.

Vote now and discuss.

 

[The TRUTH]

Who voted no? do you even know who Michael Jones is?

I voted yes........ no brainer ,one of the best players of all time and better then any player currently in the TRF Hall of Fame.

 

[esoj]

fairly easy to vote yes. not only one of the best abs but one of the best of all time to play the game

 

[Canadian_Rugby_Guy]

I voted yes because I respect the principles he brought in with him. I'm too inexperienced in the rugby world to have seen/heard much of Jones before this article by Chiro, but he looks like he was a person who was both good at the game and good at being a person.

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

I'm abstaining from this vote. Not because I don't think Jones deserves to go in, just because I know nothing about him and don't think it's fair to call either way whether he deserves a place or not.

 

[Ripper]

I propose a new rule for the TRF hall of fame.

Back up your No vote with a reason or else its not counted.

Back on subject.

Yes, No explanation is needed.

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

Originally posted by Canadian_Rugby_Guy@Mar 23 2006, 04:07 AM
I voted yes because I respect the principles he brought in with him. I'm too inexperienced in the rugby world to have seen/heard much of Jones before this article by Chiro, but he looks like he was a person who was both good at the game and good at being a person.

he wasnt only 'good' at the game....he was great and his discipline was unmatched in his era...main reason some may have not heard of him becoz he was mostly in the shadow of other great players..sean fitzpatrick,zin zan brooke,buck shelford etc...and the fact he never played sundays and he wasnt as much as the character other players in the team were


he was an old school player and if he was bought back to todays rugby with the same skillset he would easily match the best number sevens today like richie mccaw,george smith etc...


saying that..he was way before his time,accompanied by a few career threatning injuries which he recovered from but not having the same impact he had in 1987..but still was in a league of his own in 1990 - 1996

he was what richie mccaw will be in a couple of years time..the greatest number 7 of his era

and that is the whole point of hall of fame..to give praise to our legends and heroes and educate the ones who do not know
which i find this debate/vote system quite silly..it is an automatic decision such as martin,jonah and kieth

there should be a panel to decide whether or not that man goes in...and there are people here that do not know any history of michael jones and choose not to induct based on nothing?....shameful to the rugby game and the pioneers of it

voting system needs to go...its pathetic

 

[cavan]

I voted yes but you i think it's fair for users to vote no if they have never seen a particular player play. I wouldn't have watched the first world cup but i have seen the replays many times and i would agree that jones was a class act.

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

so its based on what people see?....not on what the player has achieved for himself,his team and the game of rugby?....


oh so colin meads does not belong here?..nor does jpr williams? or anyone else before 1990 or the turn of 'pro rugby' era?

i think this forum subject should inform the kiddies outthere of the pioneers who made this the game it is..these players that we have may not heard of on the international scale have influenced every superstar player today


thats why i think this voting crap should be out..... B)

 

[An Tarbh]

So how would you propose that we put people in the Hall of Fame then?

 

[Ripper]

Make them run a gauntlet with Fire, Ice, Falling Boulders and Killer Bees.

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

Originally posted by An Tarbh@Mar 23 2006, 07:02 PM
So how would you propose that we put people in the Hall of Fame then?

why vote on whos who..anyone who really appreciates rugby knows who these legends are and their legacy thats why this thread shouldnt be of 'competition' like manner
who really cares who goes in what order?...the only thing we shud be concerned about is who gets in here and the information provided of that player...

its only obvious that martin johnson,kieth wood,michael jones and jonah are legends and richly deserving of being here due to there services to our great game...and its easy to recognise that there are guys who are not legends..guys who do not have the impact,skill and talent to be here...

so posters..just post up legends..ya wanna kick start?..
The Official Rugby Hall of Fame

go there and find some,google there bios,add your own point of view and post it up with heaps of stats and pictures,videos..to inform the online rugby community...and stop this silly debating on whether or not they belong here..becoz there is no real reason at all that all four of these men need votes to get into the "trf hall of fame"..becoz debating such thing is just plain stupid...i thought you an tarbh of all people..with ya wonderous knowledge wud have figured that out by now

 

[stormmaster1]

I voted yes. From the article it looks like he was a great player, and the saying no to playing for his country for religous/personal reasons kind of adds a bit of an aura to him.

 

[DonBilly]

Originally posted by The TRUTH!!@Mar 22 2006, 06:24 AM
Who voted no? do you even know who Michael Jones is?

I voted yes........ no brainer ,one of the best players of all time and better then any player currently in the TRF Hall of Fame.

Well he was very bad at Sunday Rugby

Rugby is a religion you need to practice 7 days a week!

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

well he only managed 5 days a week,plus game day if ya count that

although off on sundays,he managed the allblack jersey on more than 50 times,won a world cup,won the first test series in south africa,won the bledisloe,won super12 ***le,npc ***le,ranfurly shield(the ultimate bragging right in nz provinicial footy) also retired a legend..inducted in the rugby hall of fame,won various pacific island awards from community/charity work to sports assistance for the young,has his own street(named after him),could be tv celeb but remains a non-jackass( ala matthew ridge and marc ellis)...instead in his time he uses to support the pacific island community within cultural to sport aspects in nz

he was part of the coaching team for the very first conjoined pacific island squad and has been the coach of the manu samoan national team since 2002


he is the epitome of rugby....played the game at the top and to this day continues to support not only the forever growing community of rugby in new zealand but the communities in samoa,tonga and fiji


if rugby was a religion..than bow down to michael jones

 

[esoj]

Originally posted by cavan@Mar 23 2006, 01:51 PM
I voted yes but you i think it's fair for users to vote no if they have never seen a particular player play. I wouldn't have watched the first world cup but i have seen the replays many times and i would agree that jones was a class act.

why though. that is just stupid. that would really limit who some people vote for then as they are that young and would only vote for players from the mid 90's to now.

if some people don't have a sense of rugby history they shouldn't vote at all.

michael jones is a case in point. he is widely known as a legend in the game but some people because they are younger and haven't seen him play will vote no because they haven't seen him play which is vastly unfari imo.

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

exactly...thats my whole arguement against the stupid approach to this hall of fame system

if there is any point to discuss why they shouldnt be in the hall of fame than it should stand in the thread created for that supposive legend

why is there a need to discuss whether jonah,keith,martin ect.. belong in a rugby hall of fame???...there should be no hall of fame forum then..and just a section to discuss there inabilities in the game of rugby...rather than what ive been trying to portray in celebrating the legends

silly system here...

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by esoj@Apr 3 2006, 10:19 AM
michael jones is a case in point. he is widely known as a legend in the game

That's not entirely true. He isn't widely talked about in England, hence why I've never seen enough of him, and don't feel it would be fair to vote.

 

[THE CHIROPRACTOR101]

Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby+Apr 3 2006, 11:29 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-esoj

@Apr 3 2006, 10:19 AM
michael jones is a case in point. he is widely known as a legend in the game

That's not entirely true. He isn't widely talked about in England, hence why I've never seen enough of him, and don't feel it would be fair to vote. [/b]

well the same case could be made againts keith wood as he aint recognised alot down here in nz...yet hes still in the hall of fame..but from my point of view he belongs..ive heard of him,ive been informed of his deeds in rugby and ive seen him from time to time take the field and he perfectly fits the player everyone makes him out to be...

the facts have been laid out on michael jones...and you can read sts fan webby cant you?...

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

Originally posted by THE CHIROPRACTOR101@Apr 3 2006, 01:12 PM
the facts have been laid out on michael jones...and you can read sts fan webby cant you?...

You could try telling me that Lavea belongs in the Hall of Fame by writing a fantastic article on him.

Does that mean I should believe you if you do?