GOAT
-
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
I don't get the love for Tom Brady. Yes he is the winningest NFL player ever, but that is a combination of his longevity and who he played for.
During his career his stats aren't even close to GOAT territory.
Tom Brady
MVPs = 3.
Passer rating = 97.3Peyton Manning:
MVPs = 5
Passer rating = 96.5 (for worse teams)Aaron Rodgers:
MVPs = 4
Passer rating = 104.2Now argue all you like that Tom Brady is better than Aaron Rodgers, but you have deal with the fact that he has less MVPs and a lower rating, which he should not if he is clearly better. Maybe you are right about some intangibles, but there is no way he is so far out in front that he gets to be one of the greatest sportsmen ever.
Guys in the GOAT conversation should have stats like Gretsky or Bradman -- so far out in front that it isn't even close.
Lance Armstrong, even disregarding his cheating, is even less deserving. His palmares is simply seven Tours de France and almost nothing else. He doesn't come within a mile of Eddy Merckx who is far and away the greatest cyclist ever. Merckx at his peak won every second race he rode.
To Americans, for whom cycling means watching the Tour once a year and have no sense of cycling history, Armstrong looks brilliant. To cycling fans there is rather a lot more to the sport.
Indians still disagree and point out his ODI and T20 record is shit.
In boxing it’s hard to go past Muhammad Ali as cliche as it is.
He fought EVERYONE, didn’t duck a challenge, freaky skills and changed stylistically as he got older although he did go on too long and tarnish the record a bit.
There’s also a few fighters I prefer personally but you can’t fault what he did for the sport.
-
@antipodean said in GOAT:
@taniwharugby said in GOAT:
That nonsense has more validity than the claim Wilt benches >220kg.
Also, powerlifting in suits or with massive arches in the back make a mockery of the concept IMO.
Indeed.
Check out the complete and utter lack of ROM in that vid.
Then if you can be bothered sitting through it check out a more legit effort.
I’ll freely admit that I suspect Wilt Chamberlain was a better basketballer than Brian Shaw though.
I think people who genuinely believe Wilt benched 500lbs have no idea just how much weight that is. The simple fact is there's no actual evidence of these feats. None. What are the odds this fluffybunny was great at everything and the only thing anyone decided to actually capture was some basketball games?
His reputed athletic records don't need to be judged contemporaneously - we can look at them against the best ever.
440 yards (400m) - less than 10% off the best time ever for U18
880 yards (800m) - within 13% of the best time ever for U18
Shotput is within 22% of Jacko Gill's record for a 16lb shot. And he looks like this:
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/ZWGUFZQRFK3VNVMS4F5YF25IOE.jpg)
That's the image of a shot-putter who benches only 10% more... We can put this nonsense to bed.
-
Tom Brady re-wrote what success looks like in the NFL
He has more rings than any team. Even lost a couple of SBs. Prior to Brady guys like Rodgers and Peyton would be called among the best ever. TB destroys their career accomplishments.
He was the reason the Patriots won. He then went and won immediately at another team.
I fucking hate Tom Brady but he's the greatest. If you have 2 mins to score a TD to win a superbowl I don't want any other player under centre. He'll get it, because he always gets it. And he'll get it throwing to scrubs.
-
Rings, rings, rings. You can't judge individuals on team performances.
Why does the number of rings supersede the number of MVPs? One is team performance, (multiplied by longevity) and the other is individual brilliance.
By that logic Tiger Woods should not be in the running. He doesn't have the most majors -- end of story.
-
@Chester-Draws in this case I believe you can.
But it's all subjective so by all means, take Rodgers
I'll take Brady. And we'll win.
-
-
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
Rings, rings, rings. You can't judge individuals on team performances.
Why does the number of rings supersede the number of MVPs? One is team performance, (multiplied by longevity) and the other is individual brilliance.
By that logic Tiger Woods should not be in the running. He doesn't have the most majors -- end of story.
By that standard, then we can't include team members as the GOAT?
Definitely don't agree with that.
The best players are those that step up when the most is in the line. This is why I don't fall into line with the Sergio Parisse praise.
-
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
It's definitely a mabo thing.
For me, Dan Carter is the best rugby player of all time.
However, Richie McCaw is the greatest rugby player of all time.
By miles. -
This post is deleted!
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (**As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
**
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.Did you throw up a little in your mouth typing that?
-
@MajorRage said in GOAT:
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
Rings, rings, rings. You can't judge individuals on team performances.
Why does the number of rings supersede the number of MVPs? One is team performance, (multiplied by longevity) and the other is individual brilliance.
By that logic Tiger Woods should not be in the running. He doesn't have the most majors -- end of story.
By that standard, then we can't include team members as the GOAT?
Definitely don't agree with that.
The best players are those that step up when the most is in the line. This is why I don't fall into line with the Sergio Parisse praise.
What the hell has Sergio Parisse got to do with any kind of GOAT discussion???
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
So Tiger is the greatest, despite not having the most majors. But Brady is because he has the most?
Do you not see the inconsistency?
I've watched Tom Brady play, and I've watched Aaron Rodgers play. At no point did I think, hey that Brady guy throws the ball so much better. Because he doesn't. If Brady is better, it is by inches. If he's so much better, why are his stats so much worse?
Which means he is not in the league of Gretsky or Pele. Guys who everyone who watched acknowledged were a class above the rest.
-
@MajorRage said in GOAT:
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
Rings, rings, rings. You can't judge individuals on team performances.
Why does the number of rings supersede the number of MVPs? One is team performance, (multiplied by longevity) and the other is individual brilliance.
By that logic Tiger Woods should not be in the running. He doesn't have the most majors -- end of story.
By that standard, then we can't include team members as the GOAT?
Definitely don't agree with that.
The best players are those that step up when the most is in the line. This is why I don't fall into line with the Sergio Parisse praise.
What the hell has Sergio Parisse got to do with any kind of GOAT discussion???
That’s exactly my point!
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (**As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
**
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.Did you throw up a little in your mouth typing that?
Nah I love watching great players doing great things
-
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
So Tiger is the greatest, despite not having the most majors. But Brady is because he has the most?
Do you not see the inconsistency?
I've watched Tom Brady play, and I've watched Aaron Rodgers play. At no point did I think, hey that Brady guy throws the ball so much better. Because he doesn't. If Brady is better, it is by inches. If he's so much better, why are his stats so much worse?
Which means he is not in the league of Gretsky or Pele. Guys who everyone who watched acknowledged were a class above the rest.
Read it again
-
Cases for both sides here.
MVP is voted for, so prone to shit decisions (Rusty, Nash x 2, Malone etc)
Rings are absolute but require team effort, and many have won rings that are less deserved than some who haven't (Horry v Barkley?)
No right answer
The thing about team sport MVP selections is that every one of them needed their team mates to win it.
Russ got it because he averaged a TD over the course of an 82 game season. He needed his team mates to make shots on his passes and get out of the way with all those defensive rebounds he got.
Malone needed a player of Stockton’s ability and selflessness to feed him the ball at the right place and time. Still the greatest number of passes from one player to another in NBA history.
Team sport MVPs for sports like basketball, football/soccer, rugby and even NFL are a bit of a misnomer because of the reliance on others. A QB still needs a damn good offensive line and decent receivers to do their thing. Great Ice Hockey centres still need players to set screens and get them the puck.
A team sport like baseball and even cricket to a large extent where the key activities in the game are so heavily individualised, you can more easily focus on standout players and their own impact on the sport.
Slightly OT - I’ve always found the big egos of sportspeople in team sports really interesting. So much of your success is not in your control yet they approach it as if it is. Quite the mindset or is it just huff and bluster.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in GOAT:
Cases for both sides here.
MVP is voted for, so prone to shit decisions (Rusty, Nash x 2, Malone etc)
Rings are absolute but require team effort, and many have won rings that are less deserved than some who haven't (Horry v Barkley?)
No right answer
The thing about team sport MVP selections is that every one of them needed their team mates to win it.
Russ got it because he averaged a TD over the course of an 82 game season. He needed his team mates to make shots on his passes and get out of the way with all those defensive rebounds he got.
Malone needed a player of Stockton’s ability and selflessness to feed him the ball at the right place and time. Still the greatest number of passes from one player to another in NBA history.
Team sport MVPs for sports like basketball, football/soccer, rugby and even NFL are a bit of a misnomer because of the reliance on others. A QB still needs a damn good offensive line and decent receivers to do their thing. Great Ice Hockey centres still need players to set screens and get them the puck.
A team sport like baseball and even cricket to a large extent where the key activities in the game are so heavily individualised, you can more easily focus on standout players and their own impact on the sport.
Slightly OT - I’ve always found the big egos of sportspeople in team sports really interesting. So much of your success is not in your control yet they approach it as if it is. Quite the mindset or is it just huff and bluster.
I always found it interesting reading how Sir Paddles ( an absolute pro and our best cricketer ever ) got on with his teammates ( many of whom were journeymen and amateurs )
The car fiasco sounds exactly that.
