Sir_Loin
🏆🏆🏆
Would you believe that sometimes an award was a pound of sugar?
Worth it’s weight in gold those days
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Would you believe that sometimes an award was a pound of sugar?
discuss the topic properly?
You mean discuss the topic as you see fit ?
The answers given were a joke
Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.
Any chance of making that evidence public?
What exactly do we have to lose through transparency ?
I also find it very hard to understand why you would say you would ignore me, yet keep coming back to attach me, not the issue but me personally.
Why are you doing that? What is in it for you personally?
Do you have an issue with me personally? It sure seems that way.
Stop harassing me, this is a public forum where ideas can be shared right? we don';t all have to agree with you do we?
I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.
The answers you got from Rhett were not a joke.
Rhett answered everything he could for you mate (and others), you should be thankful he took the time to provide answers to some great and solid questions by you.
He didnt have to come on and do that.
But at the same time we have to respect the fact he doesnt want to throw someone under the bus.
The revealing of that name should be for club officials to declare if they wish to do so.
And I agree with you that knowing that probably closes off the issue, but just because Rhett didnt disclose it doesn't dilute any of his other answers.
Edit: and no I dont have an issue with you personally,I have an issue with how you're treating this topic.
You really need to stop this vendetta you seem to have against Rhett Bartlett. Even if he was doing it to prove his dad was the Greatest Ever Athlete in the History Of Sport, the evidence has been vetted by multiple people, including the CEO of the Richmond Football Club.
If you’re not happy with their opinion, then you appear to have an agenda to discredit the current leadership of the RFC.
The answers given were a joke
Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.
I also asked for further details on this and got a joke of an answer, seems sus and not something that needs covering up, something innocent really that should be explained, I respect rhetts love for the club but he seems like a bit of a snobby dick
I don't think he is a prick at all.
I don’t think he would be throwing anyone under a bus as imo the 88/93 mob were trying to do something which probably was beyond their means and something that was more involving than they actually thought it would be. I think they acted with good faith and intentions, but probably didn’t have the expertise to correctly do the task. The reality is we shouldn’t be degrading their good work especially as we know absolutely nothing on their findings. ATM it’s Rhett’s and the clubs words against theirs. They may have messed up, but with the right intentions and I think we should be lenient until further facts are presented.The answers you got from Rhett were not a joke.
Rhett answered everything he could for you mate (and others), you should be thankful he took the time to provide answers to some great and solid questions by you.
He didnt have to come on and do that.
But at the same time we have to respect the fact he doesnt want to throw someone under the bus.
The revealing of that name should be for club officials to declare if they wish to do so.
And I agree with you that knowing that probably closes off the issue, but just because Rhett didnt disclose it doesn't dilute any of his other answers.
Edit: and no I dont have an issue with you personally,I have an issue with how you're treating this topic.
Back to the personal attacks I see. Very disappointing, but it does seem to be the way you try to persuade others to your point of view.grow up man seriously
I think there is zero doubt about the fact that the initial retrospective awards were absolutely done with the best intentions at heart.I don’t think he would be throwing anyone under a bus as imo the 88/93 mob were trying to do something which probably was beyond their means and something that was more involving than they actually thought it would be. I think they acted with good faith and intentions, but probably didn’t have the expertise to correctly do the task. The reality is we shouldn’t be degrading their good work especially as we know absolutely nothing on their findings. ATM it’s Rhett’s and the clubs words against theirs. They may have messed up, but with the right intentions and I think we should be lenient until further facts are presented.
I did call them nuffies, that was a bit harsh. They simply made a mistake, an award voted by cinema patrons is on reflection not a fair B&F award and should not be considered as one.I don’t think he would be throwing anyone under a bus as imo the 88/93 mob were trying to do something which probably was beyond their means and something that was more involving than they actually thought it would be. I think they acted with good faith and intentions, but probably didn’t have the expertise to correctly do the task. The reality is we shouldn’t be degrading their good work especially as we know absolutely nothing on their findings. ATM it’s Rhett’s and the clubs words against theirs. They may have messed up, but with the right intentions and I think we should be lenient until further facts are presented.
Well if one was the winner one may have a different view about such matters...packed cinema was it?!?I did call them nuffies, that was a bit harsh. They simply made a mistake, an award voted by cinema patrons is on reflection not a fair B&F award and should not be considered as one.
Also in reflection, being told to grow up when browsing a forum that’s about young men running around chasing a ball is a bit unfair.
It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.The answers given were a joke
Rhett refused to tell us who gave the info in the 80s on the best and fairest, so that means we can't check his sources, I also find it very hard to believe that a survey of a richmond cinema was the the way they determined the 1932 best and fairest.
Any chance of making that evidence public?
You dismissed Dyer being able to win the 1932 B&F based purely on the generalisation of him being like the typical 2nd year player. That's not objectivity.What happened to 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936? and as for 4 best on ground for 4/10 that doesn't win you a B&F in a full season. Try looking at it objectively without emotion.
If you have the proof that there was a vote for the 1932 B&F and he got 13 votes present that to the club as they have said that they are more than happy to adjust it.It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.
Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong
Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrongoneeyed-richmond.com
I suggest you send an email to the club, it's going around in circles here. As for my comment that you mentioned first it was only an open mind looking for a reasonable explanation. I only care about history being recorded as accurately as possible that's it, I don't care one way or the other if there was a 1932 B&FYou dismissed Dyer being able to win the 1932 B&F based purely on the generalisation of him being like the typical 2nd year player. That's not objectivity.
He was not the typical young footballer. He kicked 3 goals in his 5th game which was the 1931 SF win over Geelong. The Geelong ruckman in the 1931 GF only stopped Dyer by whacking Jack in the jaw. Dyer would latter say he had a good set of teeth before that strike.
Dyer was best on ground in 4 of our 6 wins he played full games in in 1932. Jack had 12 Brownlow votes by round 10. Gordon Strang who had 8 votes by round 10 and was BOG in the other two wins to that stage of the season didn't get a single Brownlow vote after Jack was injured. Stan Judkins who only had two best ons all season and finished on the same numbers of votes as Jack only had 2 votes by round 10. No one else for Richmond in 1932 got more than 5 votes. Doug Strang kicked 35 of his 49 goals in the last 7 games. Jack Titus kicked 31 of his 41 goals in the first 12 rounds. So it's not as though another Tiger was consistent let alone better across the entire 1932 season.
Based on the evidence available it's not unreasonable for Dyer to have been recognised as our best player in 1932 despite only playing just over half a season.
You then add the fact the early-mid 1930s was the height of the Great Depression. Who is to say the best player wasn't still acknowledged in some way even just nominally. Jack was voted most popular player and awarded a "Richmond Cup" by the Club in September, 1932 (see my previous post and the OER link to the 1932 Herald article). Sadly, everyone from that era is now long gone to confirm what exactly happened. Which was not the case in 1988 when the pre-1940 records were apparently added. It seems strange that no one took issue with these addition to the Club records if it was all just simply made up. I also find it hard to accept Dyer or any surviving former player at that time would accept an award like a B&F they knew they didn't earn.
As an aside, if the Club now believes the 1988 B&F additions were simply retrospective awards and see this as wrong then that is at odds with their newly introduced retrospective awarding of life memberships. Who is to stop say in 30 years time a future Board and admin deciding to remove life memberships and revert to the original criteria of 150 games?
"Most popular player" is not a best and fairest award though. Rhett Bartlett has been clear that even awards for "best player" or "best overall player" have also not been considered as "best and fairest".It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.
Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong
Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrongoneeyed-richmond.com
Totally agree!But the award was never made, to the satisfaction of club historians. It's similar to the mythical "Champion of the Colony" award from the early years, for which Vic Thorp was credited as a two-time winner. Turned out it was a retrospective title created by journalists years down the track.
Preserving historical fact is the right thing to do.
It was a vote beforehand (Dyer won with 13 votes) then they went to the Hoyts cinema in Richmond to present the "Richmond Cup" to Jack.
Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrong
Richmond says Jack Dyer's 1932 B&F was wrongoneeyed-richmond.com
Dyer was best on ground in 4 of our 6 wins he played full games in in 1932. Jack had 12 Brownlow votes by round 10. Gordon Strang who had 8 votes by round 10 and was BOG in the other two wins to that stage of the season didn't get a single Brownlow vote after Jack was injured. Stan Judkins who only had two best ons all season and finished on the same numbers of votes as Jack only had 2 votes by round 10. No one else for Richmond in 1932 got more than 5 votes. Doug Strang kicked 35 of his 49 goals in the last 7 games. Jack Titus kicked 31 of his 41 goals in the first 12 rounds. So it's not as though another Tiger was consistent let alone better across the entire 1932 season.