GOAT - The eternal debate

[Yulia]

Isn't he a bit sexist? Something about women shouldn't be paid the same or something. Like I say, I'm not a tennis fan. Put that on top of anti vaxer and I'd say the guy is a monumental tool.

Djokovic? What a scoundrel

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Isn't he a bit sexist? Something about women shouldn't be paid the same or something. Like I say, I'm not a tennis fan. Put that on top of anti vaxer and I'd say the guy is a monumental tool.

Well, the whole should women be paid equally on tour. Always a hot topic. My own view is that in sport all things are relative. It seems tennis especially brings this topic out a lot. Djokovic hasn't endeared himself like Federer and Nadal politically in tennis circles. Should that have a bearing on his claim to
GOAT status in tennis let alone sport? Not sure. Or should it be based solely on what happens on the court/arena of sport.

He was also rumoured to have cheated on his wife with a Bollywood star when
out in India 4-5 years ago which contributed to his performance going down hill, plus injury.

No right or wrong answer- just putting it out there.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Well, the whole should women be paid equally on tour. Always a hot topic. My own view is that in sport all things are relative. It seems tennis especially brings this topic out a lot. Djokovic hasn't endeared himself like Federer and Nadal politically in tennis circles. Should that have a bearing on his claim to
GOAT status in tennis let alone sport? Not sure. Or should it be based solely on what happens on the court/arena of sport.

He was also rumoured to have cheated on his wife with a Bollywood star when
out in India 4-5 years ago which contributed to his performance going down hill, plus injury.

No right or wrong answer- just putting it out there.

I think you make a good point about transcending sport when it comes to being a GOAT. He's clearly one of the tennis GOATS in terms of ability and achievements alone and no matter how much of a bell he is nothing can take that away from him.

The more you tell me about him the more I think, on a personal level, the guy is a twat but he's a sportsman so........

Although, sportsman or not, the Covid conspiracy stuff (that I was unaware of) is not cool.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Djokovic hasn't endeared himself like Federer and Nadal politically in tennis circles.

Nadal was asked, point-blank at a press conference what he thought was the reason for the pay disparity in tennis. His response (sic) was that he didn't know the reason, just as he didn't know the reason male models earned considerably less than their female counterparts and asking the reporter why she wasn't inquiring about that. GOAT is, as far as I understand, about how good they are at the sport they practice, innit? This ain't a popularity contest.
Was Tigger Woods a worse golfer because of what he did outside the course? Was Maradona? Ty Cobb? Tyson? Jon Jones? Mayweather? List is endless. If what you did outside the field mattered to become the GOAT then you could just put some gloves on Mandela and argue he is better than Mayweather. See how silly it sounds?

You tell me it matters to sponsors and the people. Fine, agree, but that's a different conversation.

But since the subject is on the table, considering the data we have today (on viewership and the popularity of both sports) asking for equal pay is ludicrous. When two athletes can't compete against each other, it's just not the same sport. Similar, almost identical, but not the same. Just like two boxers from different categories. Have you heard the lightweight champion asking for the same pay as heavyweights? Course not, it's ridiculous. The sport is not as popular, that translates to viewership, that to revenues and that to pay. And that is just one of the reasons.

Want equality? Stop having two different sports and have them all in the same competition. No discrimination by sex, gender, etc. Have today's best WTA player lose to a 500th ranked unknown guy (and get paid accordingly). See how that goes for them. Do you know why sports were divided between sexes (not genders) to begin with?

I understand Novak can come across, well, "unlikeable" is the word that comes to mind. The fact he gets compared to Nadal and Roger, two rather likeable guys, doesn't help. But that is not the issue here, is it? He's an idiot? Let's assume so ( I don't think so but allow me to concede for the sake of the argument). So what? Are we talking about the role model influence they have or how good are they at what they do in the pitch, field or court?

I get the antivax thingie is undefendable, plain stupid, but the hitting of the lineswoman, dear me, that was an accident. Nalbandian's hitting of the linesman, now that's undefendable, but Djokovic's? That was completely accidental. I understand the rules said he had to be disqualified, and he was, but bringing that up as a negative personal trait is unfair, to say the least.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Both Djokovic and Nalbandian lashed out in frustration. The consequences were accidental not their anger.

 

[McTallshort]

Question answered

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Bada-Bing!]

 

[Bada-Bing!]

O’Sullivan has achieved perfection in snooker but Hendry still stands alone | Sean Ingle

The Scot was dominant in the 1990s and the seven-time world champion was immune to pressure in a unique way

www.theguardian.com

Equals Hendry's 7. But this writer argues Hendry still the GOAT of snooker.

Personally Much prefer Ronnie's style of play and how he won his 7 but then there is the recency bias but Ronnie playing and winning over longer period and deeper field.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

O’Sullivan has achieved perfection in snooker but Hendry still stands alone | Sean Ingle

The Scot was dominant in the 1990s and the seven-time world champion was immune to pressure in a unique way

www.theguardian.com

Equals Hendry's 7. But this writer argues Hendry still the GOAT of snooker.

Personally Much prefer Ronnie's style of play and how he won his 7 but then there is the recency bias but Ronnie playing and winning over longer period and deeper field.

Same as in many sports, the idea that someone new can never be as good as the legends who came before, not that RoS is new as such.

 

[Reiser99]

Tbh there is always an element of having been first means it's better.

 

[RedruthRFC]

O’Sullivan has achieved perfection in snooker but Hendry still stands alone | Sean Ingle

The Scot was dominant in the 1990s and the seven-time world champion was immune to pressure in a unique way

www.theguardian.com

Equals Hendry's 7. But this writer argues Hendry still the GOAT of snooker.

Personally Much prefer Ronnie's style of play and how he won his 7 but then there is the recency bias but Ronnie playing and winning over longer period and deeper field.

On balance, I tend to agree. IMO, a lot of Ronnie's GOAT claim is based on his longevity. When you talk about world ***les, Hendry's feat of winning 7 ***les in 14 years is much more impressive than Ronnie's of 7 in 30. Similarly, Hendry spent more consecutive years at number 1 than Ronnie has managed in total over his whole career. I wouldn't mind betting that the 100 / 147 record doesn't stack up so well against Hendry's if you have access to the data in order to break it down by frames played.

 

[Reiser99]

Tbh for me percentages are the closest you'll get to a good comparison. Imagine what Jim Clark might have achieved if he hadn't died. However, when you look at his percentages he is comparable to Hamilton and Schumacher.

 

[General Melchett]

On balance, I tend to agree. IMO, a lot of Ronnie's GOAT claim is based on his longevity. When you talk about world ***les, Hendry's feat of winning 7 ***les in 14 years is much more impressive than Ronnie's of 7 in 30. Similarly, Hendry spent more consecutive years at number 1 than Ronnie has managed in total over his whole career. I wouldn't mind betting that the 100 / 147 record doesn't stack up so well against Hendry's if you have access to the data in order to break it down by frames played.

Agree with this.

Not that it's a factor in a GOAT debate but I find Ronnie's interviews a bit depressing. I get that he has a history of mental health issues and has battled depression but he always gives the impression that he's doing the sport a massive favour by playing and doesn't really appreciate what the sport has done for him. When asked about matching Hendry's seven ***les last night he just made out he didn't care at all and it was a bit uncomfortable to watch.

 

[Which Tyler]

On balance, I tend to agree. IMO, a lot of Ronnie's GOAT claim is based on his longevity. When you talk about world ***les, Hendry's feat of winning 7 ***les in 14 years is much more impressive than Ronnie's of 7 in 30. Similarly, Hendry spent more consecutive years at number 1 than Ronnie has managed in total over his whole career. I wouldn't mind betting that the 100 / 147 record doesn't stack up so well against Hendry's if you have access to the data in order to break it down by frames played.

I think Ronnie's claim is both his longevity, but also that he's completely unplayable on his day. Pretty much everyone in snooker has him as the best players who's ever picked up a cue, and most (including Hendry) are amazed it's taken him this long to reach 7.
Add in his longevity, and his mental health issues (which have robbed him of many more titles), and I'm not going to disagree with them.
Of course, Hendry wil also be in the conversation for being so dominant for a decent length of time, when he basically never dropped below 8/10.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

I know snooker was barred by the OP, but there is an argument for Ronnie with the eye test of how he compared others in the sport (past, present and future) when in top form - he doesn't look human to anyone who has picked up a snooker cue when be is in full flight. Being ambidextrous helps. China has had squillions of snooker players for years now and nobody has come close to Ronnie for natural talent in my opinion. But yes, snooker remains a very geographically limited and a niche sport, and he is all natural talent rather than a true competitor so I'd rule him out too (I'm also one who'd err on the side of football and running in terms of accessibility of the sport and lack of barrier to reach the top being a factor).

In terms of GOAT generally I'm really struggling. From the eye test I'd go with a toss up between Bolt and Michael Johnson. Bolt beat a load of dopers (which is both incredibly impressive and suspicious given some of those dopers had the same national team) in an incredibly accessible, international and meritocratic (at age levels) sport, so I think I'd go with him using the old dangerous assumption of innocence. But he's a physical freak with the combination of size and exclusivity, so I hate to reward that.

I'd rule out dominant distance runners as it is so skewed to those raised at altitude.

I've never been particularly impressed by Messi at World Cups and Spanish clubs historically don't have a reputation for being impressive defensively (unlike say Serie A in its pomp) so it is a place attacking players can shine. For football I'd thrown in Lilian Thuram from left field. Played for years alongside near gods Cannivaro and Buffon at Parma and always looked slightly better than both of them (which is about the greatest compliment I could give as an Italian fan). You'll never see a defensive trio like that again. Thuram won a World Cup and when he messed up positionally in a WC semi his response was to run up the field and score two goals from open play, which isn't bad for a central defender who'd only ever scored once in over 200 hundred games in Serie A (although he was playing right back on the day I believe). A French record 142 caps, pace, strength, impenetrable to opposing power, speed or guile and touched by the gods in a WC semifinal, he is the footballer who epitomised 'man against boys' to me. Bonus points for going with the name Lilian when his real first name was Rudy.



Bradman is from a bygone era in a niche sport. Wilt Chamberlain the same. Motorsport, swimming, cycling, tennis and rugby too niche. Boxing difficult to judge due to different weight categories.

Bound to be someone in massive accessible Asian sports like table tennis, badminton or kabadi that deserves a shout but I'll be damned if I know who they are.

So yeah Bolt is my incredibly uninspired selection from my head and Thuram from my heart.

 

[Reiser99]

I would definitely echo that talent doesn't equal GOAT. Plenty have talent and don't achieve.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I've never been particularly impressed by Messi at World Cups and Spanish clubs historically don't have a reputation for being impressive defensively (unlike say Serie A in its pomp) so it is a place attacking players can shine. For football I'd thrown in Lilian Thuram from left field. Played for years alongside near gods Cannivaro and Buffon at Parma and always looked slightly better than both of them (which is about the greatest compliment I could give as an Italian fan). You'll never see a defensive trio like that again. Thuram won a World Cup and when he messed up positionally in a WC semi his response was to run up the field and score two goals from open play, which isn't bad for a central defender who'd only ever scored once in over 200 hundred games in Serie A (although he was playing right back on the day I believe). A French record 142 caps, pace, strength, impenetrable to opposing power, speed or guile and touched by the gods in a WC semifinal, he is the footballer who epitomised 'man against boys' to me. Bonus points for going with the name Lilian when his real first name was Rudy.

Thuram is in my GOAT football XI.

GK: Schmeichel. Still best goalie I have seen in my life time And I am a Liverpool fan.

Right back: Thuram.
Sweeper: Beckenbauer.
Left back: Maldini

Defensive Mid: Rijkaard.

Right midfield: Maradona.
Central playmaker: Zidane
Left midfield: Pele

Right forward: Messi
Centre Forward: Ronaldo Nazario
Left Forward: Christiano Ronaldo.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Thurman is in my GOAT football XI.

GK: Schmeichel. Still best goalie I have seen in my life time And I am a Liverpool fan.

Right back: Thuram.
Sweeper: Beckenbauer.
Left back: Maldini

Defensive Mid: Rijkaard.

Right midfield: Maradona.
Central playmaker: Zidane
Left midfield: Pele

Right forward: Messi
Centre Forward: Ronaldo Nazario
Left Forward: Christiano Ronaldo.

I think I agree with most of that. Rijkaard doesn't stand out to me, I think I'd wedge Roberto Carlos in to a back four.

I think soccer shows that talent doesn't equal GOAT as Reisser put it above. I don't think any of these guys were naturally as technically good and skillful as Ronaldinho. George Best had it all too but both wasted a lot of their potential despite at times in their careers' being the absolute world's best.

 

[ncurd]

GK: Schmeichel. Still best goalie I have seen in my life time And I am a Liverpool fan.

Probably the only goalie you ever really heard of in those kind hushed tones plenty of other great keepers but he's the one teams simply say on his night it didn't matter poorly United defended there was no getting past him.

On Ice Hockey terms its Martin Brodeur who was so good they had to change the rules of the game to nerf him and Patrick Roy.

Ronnie I think the main factor is his win% should be equal to or better than Hendry's. It also doesn't help in Snooker that it kind of since the 80's has been divided up into era's dominated by one person ROS should of nominated for two but really hasn't and gone in fits and spurts.