The GOAT
-
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
Serena Williams has her name in the hat as well
LOL no. You cannot put a woman into a conversation like this against men who would nil her every fucking day. Ridiculous, and an insult to the Fed.
That depends, and it's not ridiculous at all IMO. You're right if you consider the GOAT to be the player/athelete who consistently beats everyone else (you seem to go for that approach). You're wrong if you consider the GOAT to be the best performing player/athlete (e.g. the athlete with the highest number of wins/medals/highest ranking).
If you choose the first, you're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing sportsmen and women, for the simple reason that they differ considerably physically. So yeah, then a woman could never be a GOAT. You can also never pick a bantamweight boxer, no matter how good, because they'd always be beaten by a heavy weight. A Paralympian could then also never be a GOAT, because they'd always be beaten by an able-bodied sportsperson.
I think that's completely the wrong approach and an insult to all the excellent sportspeople that you exclude that way. If you go for the second approach, you can look at number of grand slams won, number of masters won, other important tournaments. World rankings, and how long they've held the top spot in a sportsperson's own sportscode & category.
I prefer the second approach, and would put both the Fed and Serena Williams on the list of GOATs.
To me, Valerie Adams also belongs on the list using the same approach.
-
@Stargazer said in The GOAT:
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
Serena Williams has her name in the hat as well
LOL no. You cannot put a woman into a conversation like this against men who would nil her every fucking day. Ridiculous, and an insult to the Fed.
That depends, and it's not ridiculous at all IMO. You're right if you consider the GOAT to be the player who consistently beats everyone else (you seem to go for that approach). You're wrong if you consider the GOAT to be the best performing player (e.g. the player with the highest number of wins/medals/highest ranking).
If you choose the first, you're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing sportsmen and women, for the simple reason that they differ considerably physically. So yeah, then a woman could never be a GOAT. You can also never pick a bantamweight boxer, no matter how good, because they'd always be beaten by a heavy weight. A Paralympian could then also never be a GOAT, because they'd always be beaten by an able-bodied sportsperson.
I think that's completely the wrong approach and an insult to all the excellent sportspeople that you exclude that way. If you go for the second approach, you can look at number of grand slams won, number of masters won, other important tournaments. World rankings, and how long they've held the top spot in a sportsperson's own sportscode & category.
I prefer the second approach, and would put both the Fed and Serena Williams on the list of GOATs.
To me, Valerie Adams also belongs on the list using the same approach.
I'm not going to read all of that. But credit for your patient response.
Karsten Braasch destroyed the Williams sisters after boozing, golf, and more beer.
This is an argument about THE GREATEST. That's the definite article, and it's singular. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. Anyone who cannot compete with men cannot be in a separate category of trying really hard when we are talking about the Greatest Of All Time.
-
Preparation is crucial. Remember that a game like this is light-hearted - taking it too seriously would be a mistake. My training regime consisted of a leisurely round of golf in the morning followed by a couple of shandies. I turned up on court feeling suitably laid-back.
-
@KiwiMurph said in The GOAT:
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
Jesse Owens. Because BLM. And I mean that seriously. Black guy fucking up the Furher.
These conversations usually have Ali in there for similar reasons.
Mayweather though clearly the better boxer in that he's so far ahead of his competition. Which I think is the point of the thread.
It's not that simple.
Mayweather was very good at deciding who to fight and when to fight them.
Ali's era of boxing was so much stronger than who Floyd fought it's not even funny.
We will have to agree to disagree. Mayweathers record is absolutely not a list of nobodies.
-
@Stargazer said in The GOAT:
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
Serena Williams has her name in the hat as well
LOL no. You cannot put a woman into a conversation like this against men who would nil her every fucking day. Ridiculous, and an insult to the Fed.
That depends, and it's not ridiculous at all IMO. You're right if you consider the GOAT to be the player who consistently beats everyone else (you seem to go for that approach). You're wrong if you consider the GOAT to be the best performing player (e.g. the player with the highest number of wins/medals/highest ranking).
If you choose the first, you're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing sportsmen and women, for the simple reason that they differ considerably physically. So yeah, then a woman could never be a GOAT. You can also never pick a bantamweight boxer, no matter how good, because they'd always be beaten by a heavy weight. A Paralympian could then also never be a GOAT, because they'd always be beaten by an able-bodied sportsperson.
I think that's completely the wrong approach and an insult to all the excellent sportspeople that you exclude that way. If you go for the second approach, you can look at number of grand slams won, number of masters won, other important tournaments. World rankings, and how long they've held the top spot in a sportsperson's own sportscode & category.
I prefer the second approach, and would put both the Fed and Serena Williams on the list of GOATs.
To me, Valerie Adams also belongs on the list using the same approach.
This is an argument about THE GREATEST. That's the definite article, and it's singular. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. Anyone who cannot compete with men cannot be in a separate category of trying really hard when we are talking about the Greatest Of All Time.
We will have to agree to disagree. What your approach comes down to is that only able-bodied men can be GOATs in a sport because they have certain genetic/hormonal etc advantages that have nothing to do with performance, talent, skill and/or training effort.
-
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
@KiwiMurph said in The GOAT:
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
Jesse Owens. Because BLM. And I mean that seriously. Black guy fucking up the Furher.
These conversations usually have Ali in there for similar reasons.
Mayweather though clearly the better boxer in that he's so far ahead of his competition. Which I think is the point of the thread.
It's not that simple.
Mayweather was very good at deciding who to fight and when to fight them.
Ali's era of boxing was so much stronger than who Floyd fought it's not even funny.
We will have to agree to disagree. Mayweathers record is absolutely not a list of nobodies.
I didn't say it was a list of nobodies but details are important when you are talking about the GOAT.
It's not just who he fought but when he fought them and at what weight he fought them at.
De La Hoya and Pacquiao are great wins on paper - but he beat them when they were 5 years past their prime.
-
@Stargazer said in The GOAT:
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
Serena Williams has her name in the hat as well
LOL no. You cannot put a woman into a conversation like this against men who would nil her every fucking day. Ridiculous, and an insult to the Fed.
That depends, and it's not ridiculous at all IMO. You're right if you consider the GOAT to be the player who consistently beats everyone else (you seem to go for that approach). You're wrong if you consider the GOAT to be the best performing player (e.g. the player with the highest number of wins/medals/highest ranking).
If you choose the first, you're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing sportsmen and women, for the simple reason that they differ considerably physically. So yeah, then a woman could never be a GOAT. You can also never pick a bantamweight boxer, no matter how good, because they'd always be beaten by a heavy weight. A Paralympian could then also never be a GOAT, because they'd always be beaten by an able-bodied sportsperson.
I think that's completely the wrong approach and an insult to all the excellent sportspeople that you exclude that way. If you go for the second approach, you can look at number of grand slams won, number of masters won, other important tournaments. World rankings, and how long they've held the top spot in a sportsperson's own sportscode & category.
I prefer the second approach, and would put both the Fed and Serena Williams on the list of GOATs.
To me, Valerie Adams also belongs on the list using the same approach.
I'm not going to read all of that. But credit for your patient response.
Karsten Braasch destroyed the Williams sisters after boozing, golf, and more beer.
This is an argument about THE GREATEST. That's the definite article, and it's singular. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. Anyone who cannot compete with men cannot be in a separate category of trying really hard when we are talking about the Greatest Of All Time.
100% correct and taking it further the GOAT can only be a boxer as any comparison would have to have a hybrid sports comparison. Let’s see how good at golf Tiger Woods is after Tyson has clipped on the chops a few times.
-
@KiwiMurph said in The GOAT:
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
@KiwiMurph said in The GOAT:
@MajorRage said in The GOAT:
Jesse Owens. Because BLM. And I mean that seriously. Black guy fucking up the Furher.
These conversations usually have Ali in there for similar reasons.
Mayweather though clearly the better boxer in that he's so far ahead of his competition. Which I think is the point of the thread.
It's not that simple.
Mayweather was very good at deciding who to fight and when to fight them.
Ali's era of boxing was so much stronger than who Floyd fought it's not even funny.
We will have to agree to disagree. Mayweathers record is absolutely not a list of nobodies.
I didn't say it was a list of nobodies but details are important when you are talking about the GOAT.
It's not just who he fought but when he fought them and at what weight he fought them at.
De La Hoya and Pacquiao are great wins on paper - but he beat them when they were 5 years past their prime.
To be honest the more I've thought about it, the more I change my mind anyway. Ali would destroy him, and its the same sport, just a different weight. The GOAT can't be somebody who was dominant in a weight division. Thus, only the best ever heavyweight can be considered.
-
-
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
