The GOAT
-
I think you have to weight the reach/simplicity of the sport a bit - so I'd tend to have Tiger Woods & Usain Bolt higher than the likes of Bradman or Babe Ruth.
I just fail to believe that transplanted into a post-war era with more competition and professionalism that either of those two would the three or four standard deviations better than the competition.
The ability to stick a ball in a hole or run like the clappers doesn't really change.
-
-
@rotated I think there is also the gladiatorial element of individual sports. You don't get etc support from your teammates. ie whilst undoubtedly a fantastic player, how good would Ronaldo be if he was surrounded by dross all his career? The Parisse effect in reverse if you like.
-
great topic.
You have to go past numbers of sheer titles to really assess the quality. One of the critical things for me is the quality of opposition - that's something that elevates Tom Brady, Gretzky and Don Bradman right to the top of the pile. Unfortunately, it hits at the arguments against smaller/more restricted sports (David Fagan, for instance, or the rowers, or Daisuke Ohata). We had this argument about the All Whites - does getting to and drawing games in arguably the toughest and most open (national) team competition in the world stack up against actually winning in smaller sports.
I hate on TB as much as the next person, but he's won for so long and now in multiple environments in a sport designed to drag people down to be competitive. It's insane.
Bradman is competing with every batter, ever, and is head and shoulders above all others to play the sport.
I'm getting outside my expertise, but understand Gretzky was just nuts - his style and stats speak for themself. Dominant, and for such a long time, and for multiple teams.
I think Tennis and Golf struggle to compare by comparison - but am sure others will comment. That said, I'm not as convinced by Rowing, quite a niche sport and you can be carried by other team members. Athletics and cycling open up the drugs discussion, which I don't even want to think about again on a nice Tuesday morning
-
I think you have to weight the reach/simplicity of the sport a bit - so I'd tend to have Tiger Woods & Usain Bolt higher than the likes of Bradman or Babe Ruth.
> I just fail to believe that transplanted into a post-war era with more competition and professionalism that either of those two would the three or four standard deviations better than the competition.
The ability to stick a ball in a hole or run like the clappers doesn't really change.
Yeah but that’s when the ‘relative to ones peers’ arguement comes in.
The most obvious one of Bradmans era being Walter Hammond, averaged 58 and is universally regarded as one of the very best batsmen ever.
Bradman averaged 41 ( or in other words another very competent batsman ) more than he did.
-
Phil ‘The Power’ Taylor
-
@MiketheSnow said in The GOAT:
Phil ‘The Power’ Taylor
deserves a mention, when I regularly watched darts about 10 years ago he won fucken everything. Great entertainment.
-
Dr Marion Tinsley was the most dominant checkers/draughts player in history. No doubt we will have differing views on whether competitive board games are sport, but that aside, his record was phenomenal. When the computers were first ascending to the top, Tinsley won a game because he saw further than the computer which had seen over 20 moves ahead.
How Checkers Was Solved
The story of a duel between two men, one who dies, and the nature of the quest to build artificial intelligence
-
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
I'd put more names in the Mix - and will undoubtedly come up with more as I think.
Michael Jordan - similar sort of background to Brady actually.
Cristiano Ronaldo - football very subjective especially over time and many will argue Messi over him too ...
Floyd Mayweather - all comers, all time, doesn't lose.
Serena Williams has her name in the hat as well
Tiger ... hmmmm .... not quite for me.Redgrave certainly in the conversation
If you're talking Kick ball then Pele and Maradona get in the mix. Neither Christiano Ronaldo nor Messi have won a a World Cup.
Re @MN5 Bradman a definite contender.
Pele in the mix, but Maradona? Not for me.
-
Julio Cesar Chavez. An amazing record across multiple weight divisions. Had the aura about him as soon as he stepped in the ring.
-
Max Woosnam. No one else come close.
Among his achievements were winning an Olympic gold and silver in tennis at the 1920 Summer Olympics, winning the doubles at Wimbledon, compiling a 147 break in Snooker, making a century at Lord's Cricket Ground, captaining the British Davis Cup team, captaining Manchester City F.C. finishing ultimately runners-up for the Football League Championship in 1920–21, and captaining the England national football team.
-
@Victor-Meldrew holy crap, that is some resume.
Also, @TeWaio I agree with your list -but we have to accept that we are super biased because rugby is a minority sport internationally. Soccer has the advantage of being played anywhere, with any number of people, with any ball, in damn near every situation. The base of the pyramid is massive. Ditto the Men's 100m -- everyone sprints in a race at some point; the talent becomes clear. Rugby, snooker, rowing, all need infrastructure outside just the person, so cut down the competition.
Yes, I know this is an argument against Bradman
-
in my opinion of course
with regards to team sports, there isn't another position in any sport that is under more scrutiny than the NFL quarterback. In a squad of 50-odd guys, you are the man. You get the money. The entire winning and losing of the organisation rests on you.
Brady built the greatest dynasty the NFL has ever seen. Left it at 43, and immediately won with another team. Playing the prime position still at the very elite level.
Max Woosnam - Wikipedia
