What does Nadal need to do to overtake Federer as the GOAT?

[benchmark00]

Well that's embarrassing.

 

[the big bambino]

Well you know him better than I do Spark, so I'll delete that part of the post.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Think Faaip wasn't being serious...

What's with your Nazi avatar?

 

[the big bambino]

Ah screw you did read it.

 

[Spark]

What's with your Nazi avatar?

face.jpg

 

[Ruckus]

Jesse Owens was a mediocre runner because today's runners are faster. It's not that people today have access to improved sports science which leads to improved training practices, fitness and nutrition, and can focus entirely on their sport instead of it being a hobby in a broader life because of the money and global interest involved, they are just better at running. If Jesse Owens was born in 1990 he would be to slow too even play football, what a hack.

I know this is sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure the implication of this is a total misrepresentation of his argument (of which there seem to be countless others in this thread). Standards in running have improved, hence you simply can't objectively compare runners from previous eras with the current era. As a direct consequence of that you can't say Jesse Owens is an ATG runner either - because there are different variables involved (like the ones you listed), you simply cannot know. And that uncertainty - an inability to make across-era comparisons about early era athletes - is the crux of Muloghonto's argument (correct me if I'm wrong). You can say Usain Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time, for the simple reason that he has the fastest recorded time across all eras. It doesn't matter that X athlete from an early era could have potentially produced such a time if they benefited from the same conditions as Bolt - they didn't, so we'll never know, and the hypothetical ends there. But that's why the term 'all time great' is useless one. In any sport where there has been a significant progression in standards (i.e. pretty much every sport), by design you can only classify athletes in the pinnacle era (usually a modern one) as 'all time greats' - and that completely defeats the intended purpose of the term. Athletes can be 'greats of their era' or 'the greatest of their era' and that's all that you can meaningfully say.

 

[Anil]

Oh and that he is a leftie with the leftie's advantage in tennis, i don't think he can be considered GOAT (Sorry Laver fans!).

whaaat!!!

 

[the big bambino]

I know this is sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure the implication of this is a total misrepresentation of his argument (of which there seem to be countless others in this thread). Standards in running have improved, hence you simply can't objectively compare runners from previous eras with the current era. As a direct consequence of that you can't say Jesse Owens is an ATG runner either - because there are different variables involved (like the ones you listed), you simply cannot know. And that uncertainty - an inability to make across-era comparisons about early era athletes - is the crux of Muloghonto's argument (correct me if I'm wrong). You can say Usain Bolt is the greatest sprinter of all time, for the simple reason that he has the fastest recorded time across all eras. It doesn't matter that X athlete from an early era could have potentially produced such a time if they benefited from the same conditions as Bolt - they didn't, so we'll never know, and the hypothetical ends there. But that's why the term 'all time great' is useless one. In any sport where there has been a significant progression in standards (i.e. pretty much every sport), by design you can only classify athletes in the pinnacle era (usually a modern one) as 'all time greats' - and that completely defeats the intended purpose of the term. Athletes can be 'greats of their era' or 'the greatest of their era' and that's all that you can meaningfully say.

Well thats not really what he said at all. He had a few bob each way. So Hobbs was crap bcos he didnt face bouncers (when he did). Hutton couldn't cut it either even though he clearly met the objection (that is the bouncers of Lindwall Miller etc)

You can't know what a former player would have done in modern circumstances he said. That was clear. Yet he wasn't as definite when it came to rating scientists or generals.

And finally the peculiarity of bias that suspends the logic of the argument when applied to your own favourites. So Nadal, the modern, couldn't beat the previous generation of greats like Sampras. Or the 80s WI team is the peak from which all cricket before it ascended and fell thereafter.

Frankly there was zero consistency in his argument which jarred with the belief he is the smartest person in the room.

I agree that you can only rate athletes according to how they performed in their era. But just as you don't know how well an Owens would have done now neither can you say with any certainty how well a Bolt would have gone if he was born to run in Owen's era. I think we can trust their greatness though. We have no evidence otherwise that contradicts it. You can have a pleasant argument discussing who would have been better and the adjustments made to even the playing field. Mulowhatever went beyond that. He actually didn't rate champions from the past over the ridiculous condition they didn't play now! Not that we could be certain how they'd perform...

 

[Ruckus]

Well thats not really what he said at all. He had a few bob each way. So Hobbs was crap bcos he didnt face bouncers (when he did). Hutton couldn't cut it either even though he clearly met the objection (that is the bouncers of Lindwall Miller etc)

Well look I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to say that those players were crap because they simply didn't have the opportunity to test themselves against particular types of bowling. Rather, because of the absence of such things, you can't say they were a great player - they may well have been given the opportunity, but it is impossible to know.

You can't know what a former player would have done in modern circumstances he said. That was clear. Yet he wasn't as definite when it came to rating scientists or generals.

I definitely agree with him here, in that this is an absurd comparison. As he said different fields have their own distinct methods of evaluation. And that's actually a bit beside the point for me anyway. As far as I'm concerned you don't 'rate' scientists or generals or other historical figures. Sport is in the rare position of being a field where performance is all that matters, and athletes are directly in competition with each other. It's simply not the same for the other fields. I mean what would you be 'rating' anyway? Intelligence? Courage? These things are impossible to measure even within eras let alone across them. A pointless, and completely unnecessary, exercise.

I agree that you can only rate athletes according to how they performed in their era. But just as you don't know how well an Owens would have done now neither can you say with any certainty how well a Bolt would have gone if he was born to run in Owen's era. I think we can trust their greatness though. We have no evidence otherwise that contradicts it. You can have a pleasant argument discussing who would have been better and the adjustments made to even the playing field. Mulowhatever went beyond that. He actually didn't rate champions from the past over the ridiculous condition they didn't play now! Not that we could be certain how they'd perform...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's impossible to know just how well or poorly Bolt would have gone if raised in Owen's era. For people who think you can somehow make an educated guess based on relative performance amongst their own peers, I disagree with that too, here's why. Let's just say Owens is X amount quicker than the rest of his field back in his era. If his entire field were given all the benefits of modern conditions, would Owens still be X amount quicker relative to the rest of the field? I really doubt it. For example, the introduction of bio mechanical analysis could drastically improve the performance of one of Owens' peers, while not benefiting him in any significant way - maybe, naturally, his style of running was already biomechanically sound, and there wasn't much room for improvement there. But for one of his peers, there was, and their potential is a lot higher than it was when that information wasn't available. Hence any validity of relative comparisons across eras goes down the toilet.

 

[Jono]

So funny you say this because he was the one speculating that Nadal would have NOT done well in the previous era. It all started with him speculating about a modern player (in this case, tennis) not succeeding in previous era, and then it became him discussing old players (cricketers - Hobbs, etc.) not succeeding in the modern era.

All over the place.