Luke Hodge v Chris Judd

[MinerBoy]

So if I said I chose Judd because of his versatility, would you consider that sound reasoning?

Is Judd known for this? Hodge is certainly regarded very highly for his finals performances and leadership which is the area you have labelled their reasoning as flawed.

I've never said anyone's opinion is wrong.

Just their reasoning.

 

[Monkey King]

Is Judd known for this?

Makes no difference for the moment. Would the reasoning be sound? The answer is yes or no.

 

[Big_Luch]

Eagles in 05-06 were a fantastic team and unlucky to have 2 premierships

he was in a top 4 team for three years (a fair while ago). Hodge has been in a top 4 team for 5 years, with two years in between which were major let downs, he is also in a team expected to be top 4 for this year at the least.

Hawthorn were pretty terrible in 2010. Hodge carried us for the whole season. Hodge has carried us that many times, especially when he was younger before our success.

People only talk so much about Judd doing it because they needed a new reason to froth over him.

Remember the whole "Judd changed his gamestyle from outside to inside when he went to Carlton" routine ? Go look at his stats @ West Coast. Similar amounts of Clearances and Contested possessions. The only thing that happened was that he lost his outside ability, so this myth was made up.

Judd is obviously a seriously good footballer, especially @ west coast, but he is one of the most over hyped and over exaggerated players I have seen. Especially his Carlton form.

He carried a team which had won a premiership two years earlier? little different to carrying a team stuck in mediocrity...

He did change his game, unfortunately there aren't heat maps readily available to show this. But what does it matter why he did it? injuries or not he was still able to change how he played.

he is just a seriously good footballer? cmon. would think you would have to be a bit better than just that to win some brownlows, BnF's, premiership etc.

 

[MinerBoy]

Makes no difference for the moment. Would the reasoning be sound? The answer is yes or no.

It makes a massive difference and you know why.

 

[Monkey King]

It makes a massive difference and you know why.

I'm seeking only to clarify an underlying principle at this point. Do you, or do you not believe an opinion can be underpinned by flawed reasoning?

Discussing the merits of the example I provided is pointless at this stage, but we can do so with more poignant examples once your standpoint is clarified.

 

[MinerBoy]

I'm seeking only to clarify an underlying principle at this point. Do you, or do you not believe an opinion can be underpinned by flawed reasoning?

Discussing the merits of the example I provided is pointless at this stage, but we can do so with more poignant examples once your standpoint is clarified.

No, what you're doing is talking around in circles. And you know why. Because the discussion isn't about whether an opinion can be underpinned by flawed reasoning. It's about you labelling perfectly legitimate reasoning flawed because you disagree with it. You didn't have to agree with it - in which case you should have replied "I disagree with that" or even "I disagree with your reasoning, but see why you might think that way".

You provided a flawed opinion as an example. Which you seems to think helps your statement that opinions can be flawed -which isn't an issue.

The issue is that people provided perfectly reasonable opinions, that you didn't agree with, and thus labelled flawed - but they weren't. And it was clearly demonstrated why, on numerous occassions.

However, please feel free to digress, pontificate, manipulate or whatever other grandiose wordplay you'd like to apply to all this.

 

[MinerBoy]

Let's break it down even further shall we?

I choose Judd over Hodge because he has greater versatility - flawed reasoning. Because simply untrue.

I choose Judd over Hodge because he has been the better player over the careers - perfectly fine.

I choose Hodge over Judd because he is the best leader and/or finals player in the game - Widely acknowledged as such but he isn't without competition or perhaps even the clear leader at those attributes. However, in the eyes of many is seen that way. Now based on the fact that people might well value the attributes of leadership and big game performance in making their choice, and they also consider Hodge (quite reasonably) the best at those attributes - then their choice that Hodge would be their selection isn't flawed at all.

You may well disagree with that assessment of his leadership/big game status overall, or simply just in comparison with Judd, and that's fair enough. But others holding that opinion have a strong case to mount that it is applicable too, and are by no means using flawed logic to make their choice based on that.

 

[Monkey King]

No, what you're doing is talking around in circles.

Far from it. I'm actually trying to walk you in a straight line. You've bitched and moaned about how you accept others opinions and I don't, yet suddenly you can find cause for an opinion being underpinned by flawed reasoning. Ok. Great! So we've got a yes out of you at least; you do believe this can be the case. So now I will ask you another question: if I was to say I choose Judd because he is a premiership captain, would you consider this sound reasoning?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Picked Hodge (and no not just because of my team) but looking at what the player can provide now, not looking at picking them as a untried 18 year old. Judd's been affected by injury in the last couple of years more than Hodge and I think won't go on as long as hodge will.

But if you are asking it as 18 yr olds, I would've picked Judd.

 

[MinerBoy]

Far from it. I'm actually trying to walk you in a straight line. You've bitched and moaned about how you accept others opinions and I don't, yet suddenly you can find cause for an opinion being underpinned by flawed reasoning. Ok. Great! So we've got a yes out of you at least; you do believe this can be the case. So now I will ask you another question: if I was to say I choose Judd because he is a premiership captain, would you consider this sound reasoning?

Yep, spin that circle.

Let's break it down even further shall we?

I choose Judd over Hodge because he has greater versatility - flawed reasoning. Because simply untrue.

I choose Judd over Hodge because he has been the better player over the careers - perfectly fine.

I choose Hodge over Judd because he is the best leader and/or finals player in the game - Widely acknowledged as such but he isn't without competition or perhaps even the clear leader at those attributes. However, in the eyes of many is seen that way. Now based on the fact that people might well value the attributes of leadership and big game performance in making their choice, and they also consider Hodge (quite reasonably) the best at those attributes - then their choice that Hodge would be their selection isn't flawed at all.

You may well disagree with that assessment of his leadership/big game status overall, or simply just in comparison with Judd, and that's fair enough. But others holding that opinion have a strong case to mount that it is applicable too, and are by no means using flawed logic to make their choice based on that.

 

[Monkey King]

Yep, spin that circle.

If I was to say I choose Judd because he is a premiership captain, would you consider this sound reasoning?

Indulge me.

 

[MinerBoy]

So we're changing the issue from "whether their reasoning was flawed" (It wasn't - they weren't saying idiotic things like you're trying to use to make some irrelevant point) to whether any reasoning can be flawed?

Carry on. Conversation's going nowhere.

 

[JCHolmes]

Hodge will probably be close to making Hawthorns Team of the Century, will certainly not be in the AFL TOTC.
Judd is almost certain to be in both Carlton and West Coast's TOTC and close to making AFL TOTC. Quite different players, but really Judd is better in more areas and at his peak clearly further ahead of Hodge's peak. 28 Contested possessions (record I think) in a game as a linebreaking WCE midfielder. 5 Goals in a half of footy against one of the greatest teams ever at the GABBA as a second year player. Norm Smith in a losing GF side. As good as you will see as simultaneously an outside and inside midfielder goal kicking midfielder.

 

[jasonrampage2010]

Judd by quite a big margin

 

[Beer n Skittles]

I'm not sure Hodge has ever even been the best player on his team

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'm not sure Hodge has ever even been the best player on his team

Then you've not been paying attention.

 

[eaglespremiers]

I choose Hodge over Judd because he is the best leader and/or finals player in the game - Widely acknowledged as such but he isn't without competition or perhaps even the clear leader at those attributes. However, in the eyes of many is seen that way. Now based on the fact that people might well value the attributes of leadership and big game performance in making their choice, and they also consider Hodge (quite reasonably) the best at those attributes - then their choice that Hodge would be their selection isn't flawed at all.

Barring 2011 Judd's finals appearances in the last ten years have been exceptional.
While I have no problem with people rating Hodge's performances I would favour Judd's often solo efforts in finals over Hodge's.
Now I know that you and Monkey King were discussing "flawed logic" but I wanted to weigh in on this point.

 

[eaglespremiers]

I'm not sure Hodge has ever even been the best player on his team

His 2010 was a class above anyone else in the Hawthorn team IIRC.

 

[MinerBoy]

Barring 2011 Judd's finals appearances in the last ten years have been exceptional.
While I have no problem with people rating Hodge's performances I would favour Judd's often solo efforts in finals over Hodge's.
Now I know that you and Monkey King were discussing "flawed logic" but I wanted to weigh in on this point.

Actually just MK was. You are right on my path.

I have no problem with you saying you think Judd has been the better finals player. I disagree and others do to but that isn't an issue. I agree Judd has been exceptional but Hodge has a strong case in case favour too.

 

[Monkey King]

So we're changing the issue from "whether their reasoning was flawed" (It wasn't - they weren't saying idiotic things like you're trying to use to make some irrelevant point) to whether any reasoning can be flawed?

I'm trying to simplify it, going step by step, in order to identify where your viewpoint diverges from mine exactly. In the beginning it seemed you had an issue with questioning the reasoning behind someone's opinion fullstop. Now it appears you're actually quite open to questioning the reasoning behind someone's opinion, so long as it's something that makes sense to you. Ignoring the irony, I am just trying to nail down where exactly does this line fall for you. At what point does the reasoning behind an opinion find itself open for questioning?

 

[Monkey King]

Barring 2011 Judd's finals appearances in the last ten years have been exceptional.

The flawed reasoning I referred to is based in this observation, coupled with the fact the posts I refer to merely stated that Hodge is a great finals player. I have no issue with that as a stand alone statement; however without comparison to Judd's finals performances, it's just half of the equation. And if one was to factor in the other half, Judd has been immense in finals anyway. Hardly a worthy point of separation no matter which of these player you apply it to.

 

[gillo94]

Judd

 

[Egga]

Hodge today. Judd over the journey

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Judd is one of the top 5 players of the last 15 years, Hodge isn't even close to that.

 

[hebog]

Hawthorn recruiters know what they do, hence Hodge first, just like Roughead before Franklin.
Brownlow medals, as we know are not always given to the best player. I am grateful that Judd did not play for Hawthorn.