McCaw New Zealander of the year

Forums › Sports › McCaw New Zealander of the year - Thoughts?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 449

#1494857 18-Feb-2016 12:33

Would rather see community hero's be recognised. People who help others because thats what they feel is right rather than an AB who already has a decent salary and advertising deals.

Winning the world cup twice doesn't help the community battle unemployment, poverty, addiction and domestic abuse. It gives us a shiny thing in a cupboard for a few years and a couple of people a knighthood maybe.

I would rather see the ex gang member who makes school lunches for hundreds of hungry kids getting the award and money.

This country is far to rugby mad. Its just a game!

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1494858 18-Feb-2016 12:33

andrew027:

networkn: RM has been an amazing role model and ambassador and sits right up there with Sir Edmund Hillary in my opinion as one of our greatest ever Kiwi's.

Hillary, who as well as climbing mountains and leading expeditions to the North and South Pole and the Ganges, was also High Commissioner to India (including High Commissioner to Bangladesh and Nepal), founded the Himalayan Trust and worked tirelessly providing health and education opportunities to the Sherpa people, and actively worked in New Zealand for abortion law reform?

Hillary was a great man, no question. But he climbed a mountain, which did what exactly for the world? What did his expeditions to the North and South pole actually do for NZ?

I agree he helped the Sherpa's a lot, again, not a lot of benefit to NZ.

I am not in any way trying to dimish his accomplishments which were excellent, but if you are going to dissect the value provided by candidate 1, you need to do the same to all people considered in the same vein.

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 449

#1494864 18-Feb-2016 12:40

networkn:

andrew027:

networkn: RM has been an amazing role model and ambassador and sits right up there with Sir Edmund Hillary in my opinion as one of our greatest ever Kiwi's.

Hillary, who as well as climbing mountains and leading expeditions to the North and South Pole and the Ganges, was also High Commissioner to India (including High Commissioner to Bangladesh and Nepal), founded the Himalayan Trust and worked tirelessly providing health and education opportunities to the Sherpa people, and actively worked in New Zealand for abortion law reform?

Hillary was a great man, no question. But he climbed a mountain, which did what exactly for the world? What did his expeditions to the North and South pole actually do for NZ?

I agree he helped the Sherpa's a lot, again, not a lot of benefit to NZ.

I am not in any way trying to dimish his accomplishments which were excellent, but if you are going to dissect the value provided by candidate 1, you need to do the same to all people considered in the same vein.

That what Hilary did.

"Following his ascent of Everest he devoted much of his life to helping the Sherpa people of Nepal through the Himalayan Trust, which he founded in 1960[73] and led until his death in 2008. Through his efforts many schools and hospitals were built in this remote region of the Himalayas. He was the Honorary President of the American Himalayan Foundation, a United States non-profit body that helps improve the ecology and living conditions in the Himalayas. He was also the Honorary President of Mountain Wilderness, an international NGO dedicated to the worldwide protection of mountains.[citation needed] "

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1494884 18-Feb-2016 12:54

BTR:

networkn:

andrew027:

networkn: RM has been an amazing role model and ambassador and sits right up there with Sir Edmund Hillary in my opinion as one of our greatest ever Kiwi's.

Hillary, who as well as climbing mountains and leading expeditions to the North and South Pole and the Ganges, was also High Commissioner to India (including High Commissioner to Bangladesh and Nepal), founded the Himalayan Trust and worked tirelessly providing health and education opportunities to the Sherpa people, and actively worked in New Zealand for abortion law reform?

Hillary was a great man, no question. But he climbed a mountain, which did what exactly for the world? What did his expeditions to the North and South pole actually do for NZ?

I agree he helped the Sherpa's a lot, again, not a lot of benefit to NZ.

I am not in any way trying to dimish his accomplishments which were excellent, but if you are going to dissect the value provided by candidate 1, you need to do the same to all people considered in the same vein.

That what Hilary did.

"Following his ascent of Everest he devoted much of his life to helping the Sherpa people of Nepal through the Himalayan Trust, which he founded in 1960[73] and led until his death in 2008. Through his efforts many schools and hospitals were built in this remote region of the Himalayas. He was the Honorary President of the American Himalayan Foundation, a United States non-profit body that helps improve the ecology and living conditions in the Himalayas. He was also the Honorary President of Mountain Wilderness, an international NGO dedicated to the worldwide protection of mountains.[citation needed] "

Right, so following the logic presented here by others earlier in the thread, should he not be recieving the recognition for that, from Nepal?

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1494889 18-Feb-2016 12:57

The sensible question here is:

Who were the other nominees for NZer of the year?

Because those were the available choices.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1494894 18-Feb-2016 12:58

New Zealander of the Year, means the New Zealander of the Year. A person from NZ who was great this year. Doesn't imply anything about where their good deeds were located. but in saying that, most of Richies good deeds were offshore too

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

old3eyes

9158 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1365

Subscriber

#1494899 18-Feb-2016 13:05

tdgeek:

New Zealander of the Year, means the New Zealander of the Year. A person from NZ who was great this year. Doesn't imply anything about where their good deeds were located. but in saying that, most of Richies good deeds were offshore too

But he did turn down a knighthood so that's a good deed..

Regards,

Old3eyes

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 449

#1494907 18-Feb-2016 13:12

Right, so following the logic presented here by others earlier in the thread, should he not be recieving the recognition for that, from Nepal?

Edmund Hilary used his profile to improve their living conditions didn't just win a trophy. You are not comparing Apples with Apples. Richie won some trophies and is a brand ambassador for Versatile garages and flies helicopters. I don't see how he has "helped" NZ and that why IMHO I don't think he's New Zealander of the year.

You are welcome to your opinion and I'm welcome to mine.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1494911 18-Feb-2016 13:17

Personally I'm thinking the Academy Awards does not have an overall winner of all the categories and deciding between a sporting/scientific/charity achievement is not a.great place to be.

Maybe something like five top equal categories would do a better job of exposing some of the talent and achievements to wider acclaim.

In the Academy the public.tend to focus on best actor, best director, etc and all accepted nominations to those categories are seen as worthwhile. This overall winner concept of the NZ awards I'm not sure about that. Now it is established my feeling is let the public and media decide which winners are important similar to Academy award reaction.

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1494912 18-Feb-2016 13:17

BTR:

Right, so following the logic presented here by others earlier in the thread, should he not be recieving the recognition for that, from Nepal?

Edmund Hilary used his profile to improve their living conditions didn't just win a trophy. You are not comparing Apples with Apples. Richie won some trophies and is a brand ambassador for Versatile garages and flies helicopters. I don't see how he has "helped" NZ and that why IMHO I don't think he's New Zealander of the year.

You are welcome to your opinion and I'm welcome to mine.

RM has been an amazing Role Model for Children (and Adults) of NZ and other countries for over 15 years, ask any school age coach who their kids join rugby (and, therefore are getting exercise, and are working toward goals which is good for weight and mental health) to emulate and you'll find 50% say RM and 50% DC. In fact ask any number of children nationwide who they most want to grow up to be like, you'll find our sporting stars are featured WIDELY.

Sure, if you aren't into sport/Rugby you may see less value in the sporting elements but he has ALSO been involved in Charity and community projects extensively.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1494915 18-Feb-2016 13:27

networkn: Right, so following the logic presented here by others earlier in the thread, should he not be recieving the recognition for that, from Nepal?

I think NZotY should go to a New Zealander who has done great things, not necessarily someone who does great things for New Zealand.

The New Zealand Awards website says this about NZotY:

The Judges will consider information included with the nomination based on the following criteria:

The contribution and benefit to society and impact on community or nation by the individual being nominated
Their personal interest and involvement in the wider community
Details of any challenges faced and how they have been overcome
The length of service
Outline commitment to their personal development by participation in courses, forums, conventions and community activities etc.
Outline contribution to New Zealand's development
Outline degree of difficulty in achievement

Based on these criteria I think that there must be more deserving (philanthopic) recipients, rather than someone who played a sport, even if they were better than playing that sport than anyone else on the planet. And let's face it, McCaw didn't win the world cup on his own - there were a lot of other players and coaches involved.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

networkn

Networkn
32872 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15471

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1494921 18-Feb-2016 13:32

andrew027:

networkn: Right, so following the logic presented here by others earlier in the thread, should he not be recieving the recognition for that, from Nepal?

I think NZotY should go to a New Zealander who has done great things, not necessarily someone who does great things for New Zealand.

The New Zealand Awards website says this about NZotY:

The Judges will consider information included with the nomination based on the following criteria:

The contribution and benefit to society and impact on community or nation by the individual being nominated
Their personal interest and involvement in the wider community
Details of any challenges faced and how they have been overcome
The length of service
Outline commitment to their personal development by participation in courses, forums, conventions and community activities etc.
Outline contribution to New Zealand's development
Outline degree of difficulty in achievement
Based on these criteria I think that there must be more deserving (philanthopic) recipients, rather than someone who played a sport, even if they were better than playing that sport than anyone else on the planet. And let's face it, McCaw didn't win the world cup on his own - there were a lot of other players and coaches involved.

So who is a better choice? Who has had a greater overall impact on NZ in a positive way in NZ in 2015?

I think RM ticks all those boxes in some way.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1494929 18-Feb-2016 13:46

Hang on. It does not have to be impact in 2015. That is not the criteria. Past winners have been recognised for a lifetime of effort for instance. I'm not saying that to detract from McCaw, that's just how it works.

BTR

1527 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 449

#1494935 18-Feb-2016 13:52

networkn:

andrew027:

networkn: Right, so following the logic presented here by others earlier in the thread, should he not be recieving the recognition for that, from Nepal?

I think NZotY should go to a New Zealander who has done great things, not necessarily someone who does great things for New Zealand.

The New Zealand Awards website says this about NZotY:

The Judges will consider information included with the nomination based on the following criteria:

The contribution and benefit to society and impact on community or nation by the individual being nominated
Their personal interest and involvement in the wider community
Details of any challenges faced and how they have been overcome
The length of service
Outline commitment to their personal development by participation in courses, forums, conventions and community activities etc.
Outline contribution to New Zealand's development
Outline degree of difficulty in achievement
Based on these criteria I think that there must be more deserving (philanthopic) recipients, rather than someone who played a sport, even if they were better than playing that sport than anyone else on the planet. And let's face it, McCaw didn't win the world cup on his own - there were a lot of other players and coaches involved.

So who is a better choice? Who has had a greater overall impact on NZ in a positive way in NZ in 2015?

I think RM ticks all those boxes in some way.

Geez you really like him don't you, we are simply expressing our opinions and I get the impression you are almost offended that not everyone cares about Richie mccaw as much as you.

Kids wanting to grow up like him has nothing to do with his community work they want to grow up and be good at rugby.

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 581

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1495072 18-Feb-2016 16:19

The Judges will consider information included with the nomination based on the following criteria:

The contribution and benefit to society and impact on community or nation by the individual being nominated
Their personal interest and involvement in the wider community
Details of any challenges faced and how they have been overcome
The length of service
Outline commitment to their personal development by participation in courses, forums, conventions and community activities etc.
Outline contribution to New Zealand's development
Outline degree of difficulty in achievement
Based on these criteria I think that there must be more deserving (philanthopic) recipients, rather than someone who played a sport, even if they were better than playing that sport than anyone else on the planet. And let's face it, McCaw didn't win the world cup on his own - there were a lot of other players and coaches involved.

Based on that he ticks all the boxes!

McCaw has had a massive impact across all walks of life in NZ. Thousands of kids look up to him and aspire to be like him. He's humble as pie, never puts a foot wrong off the field and does a lot of work with communities via charities he's set up, fundraising for Christchurch etc . When the WC was on last year people were gathering at work in the early hours to watch the games and people who usually pass in the office without uttering a word to were all of a sudden sparking up conversations - sport does that, it can unite people, and he's the main man for our national sport. Awards like this are very subjective but you can't deny he has made a huge impact on this country.

McCaw is the man.

People saying "its just a game", pull ya heads in ya bloody hipsters.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4