GOAT - The eternal debate

[Which Tyler]

Oh so you are sane human being

Let's not go too far!

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The acronym GOAT should be changed to GOATIMO IMO.

Or Greatest of their era IMO.

Federer will always be my favourite regardless of the figures because of the way he played was just Beautiful and can't be replicated. But in terms numbers Novak beats him and Rafa pretty much on every metric even more so he's completed the set.

Team sports is more tricky. I would argue whether that particular player impacted the team and made others play even better than themselves is a metric that is hard to quantify other than the major trophies that player as part of a team.

 

[Saintjay]

My 2c on the thread topic.

OP's definition of sportsman is good. Keeps us in a domain where skill and physicality are both important.

The way I personally rate footballers in an all time context, skill and football intelligence are the most important factors, and Portuguese Ronaldo is one of the most overrated due to recency bias and an inflated comparison with Messi, who is just miles ahead as a footballer. Pele and Maradona are the only ones who compete with his dominance in their respective eras as footballers (honourable mention for Cruyff who is comfortably the most intelligent footballer of all time). Ronaldo's "mentality" is overrated too but I'll stop there before this turns into a rant about him. Pele probably wins the football debate for me but I'm actually undecided because of how good Messi and Maradona were.

I digress on football to show how hard it is just to pick the GOAT in a particular sport. Comparing across sports is then even harder, near impossible. If you forced me to choose, it would have to be Gretzky. He dominated his sport in a way very few did. Mario Lemieux and Bobby Orr ran him close in terms of overall brilliance as hockey players.

OP picks Bradman, interesting choice. Best batsman of all time without doubt, but all rounders in cricket deserve huge consideration because they do both of the things. Imran Khan and Garfield Sobers being standouts who could bat and bowl at elite levels. Sobers would have had the time of his life playing T20 cricket.

For the sport of the forum, Dupont being mentioned at all shows the effect recency bias can have. He's done some amazing things but come on, his career is far from over, a lot can still happen. He could theoretically win two World Cups and totally live up to the hype or his career could fizzle out and he'd be remembered in a very different light. (Also, a 15s player going down and smashing it in 7s isn't actually that impressive; 7s is the easier code).

See i think McDavid is close NHL wise. More professional era, fitness etc. However rules are more strict and enforced. He's still not as good as 'The great one'. I think it's so hard to compare. Sports from the 70's 80's are very different to today.

You then have people like George Best / Paul Gascoigne / James Hunt types in the what could have been category.

 

[ncurd]

See i think McDavid is close NHL wise. More professional era, fitness etc. However rules are more strict and enforced. He's still not as good as 'The great one'. I think it's so hard to compare. Sports from the 70's 80's are very different to today.

You then have people like George Best / Paul Gascoigne / James Hunt types in the what could have been category.

If McDavid is in the question Crosby and Ovetchkin needs to be discussed.

 

[General Melchett]

Or Greatest of their era IMO.

Federer will always be my favourite regardless of the figures because of the way he played was just Beautiful and can't be replicated. But in terms numbers Novak beats him and Rafa pretty much on every metric even more so he's completed the set.

Team sports is more tricky. I would argue whether that particular player impacted the team and made others play even better than themselves is a metric that is hard to quantify other than the major trophies that player as part of a team.

If that's your view on how it should be done then fine. I just don't think anyone has the divine right to set out rules or criteria for these sorts of discussions.

If two people want to have a fun discussion about whether Messi was greater than Pele then they should be free to do so. I personally don't see the harm in comparing eras - people can still factor in parameters like sportswear, equipment tech, money in the sport etc. if they so choose. Others like you may prefer to keep it within an era which in some cases may also be imperfect if e.g. careers overlap due to the people in question not being exactly the same age. My point is there is no perfect way to have these sorts of debates or discussions.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

If that's your view on how it should be done then fine. I just don't think anyone has the divine right to set out rules or criteria for these sorts of discussions.

If two people want to have a fun discussion about whether Messi was greater than Pele then they should be free to do so. I personally don't see the harm in comparing eras - people can still factor in parameters like sportswear, equipment tech, money in the sport etc. if they so choose. Others like you may prefer to keep it within an era which in some cases may also be imperfect if e.g. careers overlap due to the people in question not being exactly the same age. My point is there is no perfect way to have these sorts of debates or discussions.

I am not saying you can't. It's a pub or bar room discussion. But comparing different eras is impossible IMO - each so called Goat played under different conditions and circumstances. How can Messi's era be compared to Maradona and Pelé who were endlessly fouled from behind and played on substandard pitches. Does that make them greater? Hence why I prefer to compare them to compatriots in their era - it's fairer.

Also none of us saw the Olympic athletes from BC and their records. How come they're not in the discussion?

As the late Burt Sugar said when comparing boxers and their greatness they had to be compared against contemporaries in their era otherwise it's like comparing apples and oranges. It's not comparing if Joe Louis could beat Ali or Marciano or even v Fury or Lewis, who are giants compared to the predecessors. Greatness is measured against other greats that they came up against.

 

[General Melchett]

I am not saying you can't. It's a pub or bar room discussion. But comparing different eras is impossible IMO - each so called Goat played under different conditions and circumstances. How can Messi's era be compared to Maradona and Pelé who were endlessly fouled from behind and played on substandard pitches. Does that make them greater? Hence why I prefer to compare them to compatriots in their era - it's fairer.

Also none of us saw the Olympic athletes from BC and their records. How come they're not in the discussion?

As the late Burt Sugar said when comparing boxers and their greatness they had to be compared against contemporaries in their era otherwise it's like comparing apples and oranges. It's not comparing if Joe Louis could beat Ali or Marciano or even v Fury or Lewis, who are giants compared to the predecessors. Greatness is measured against other greats that they came up against.

Sorry but I just don't agree with that it's impossible to compare. It may be flawed or imperfect but not impossible. As I said before even comparing same era athletes can be flawed due to peaking at different times, different ages etc. People can compare and discuss what they want.

A Liverpool season ticket holder for 50 years is perfectly entitled to say who he/she thinks is the greatest player they have ever seen in a Liverpool shirt even if it means comparing eras. You can see in polls that Dalglish and Gerrard are near the top. Different eras. Different opinions.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

As I said I am not saying you can't. That is your opinion which you're entitled to it. Just as I am saying it is my opinion.

 

[Yulia]

Would definitely add Larysa Latynina to my list . Such an old record and still noone can beat it

 

[Saintjay]

If McDavid is in the question Crosby and Ovetchkin needs to be discussed.

Ovetchkin and Crosby have 9/10 years on McDavid so be interesting to see where he ends up. More than possible he doesn't have any Stanley Cups either. (I'm an oilers/flames than) So naturally biased to all things Alberta.

Also with eras you don't have players regularly racking up 120 points a seasons anymore. 120 points is pretty good with lots less players doing it since the 2000's. So it's very tough to compare on stats alone in hockey.

 

[ncurd]

Ovetchkin and Crosby have 9/10 years on McDavid so be interesting to see where he ends up. More than possible he doesn't have any Stanley Cups either. (I'm an oilers/flames than) So naturally biased to all things Alberta.

Also with eras you don't have players regularly racking up 120 points a seasons anymore. 120 points is pretty good with lots less players doing it since the 2000's. So it's very tough to compare on stats alone in hockey.

That was kinda my point McDavid is 27 now and compared to Crosby at the same agw he's done not a lot. Not in beating scoring records for a youngest player or a Stanley Cup. Crosby also had 2 Olympic gold medals as captain but to be fair McDavid hasn't been afforded that opportunity.

Although it should also be noted Crosby was definitely in a dynasty team that got utterly destroyed due to the 2017 expansion and hasn't won anything since.

He was still by far the best player on the ice when I saw him play last year and he got 0 points that game. (Letang scored a scorcher right in front of me looking over his shoulder so I went home happy)