A
An Tarbh
Guest
Chiro's made his case, now it's up to you to decide.
Vote now and discuss.
Vote now and discuss.
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 wereOriginally 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.
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 mannerOriginally 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?
Well he was very bad at Sunday RugbyOriginally 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.
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.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.
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.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
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...Originally posted by SaintsFan_Webby+Apr 3 2006, 11:29 PM--><!--QuoteBegin-esojThat'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]@Apr 3 2006, 10:19 AM
michael jones is a case in point. he is widely known as a legend in the game
You could try telling me that Lavea belongs in the Hall of Fame by writing a fantastic article on him.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?...