Never understood the infatuation with 'greatest' anyway. Is a subjective term usually related to winning, which in many team sports really doesn't tell a full picture. I'm much more interested in debating who was the best at their sport. That's the real pinnacle in my view.
List of GOATs
- Thread starter Andycoleno9
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
I'm biased of course, but Tomba and Aamodt are nowhere near Hirscher. I can live with Stenmark, although I think Hirscher would've beaten his number of wins, if he hadn't retired.
On an emotional basis Hermann Maier is the GOAT for me, he was a monster for a few years and even came back from a nearly fatal accident, which could've cost him his leg.
That fecking accident robbed us of watching his peak, like R9 destroying his knees.
Lennox Lewis and Joe Frazier have also good arguments.
EHF said Ivano Balic.Ivano Balic
Handball: Nikola Karabatic.
He is the only one who has official title as GOAT.Nikola is pure power but Ivano is handball mozart. Those two are something like Messi and Ronaldo.
Not sure how many of those are clear cut, these debates are always subjective.
So you do understand greatest, you just call it best.
They are of the generation who grew up watching Senna though. They are gonna feel an affinity towards him. For me it's Schumacher, just through sheer relentlessness for that 5 year period at the beginning of the millennium (and he would have an extra title if he hadn't broken his leg due to brake failure).
As for person saying Hamilton, I think you have to look at their teammates as well. Prime Schumacher would have broken Rosberg mentally.
Usain Bolt holds the first 3 fastest times in the 100m, 0.16 faster than anyone else and nobody has got close to beating it since. Same in the 200m where he holds the 2 fastest times, 0.13 faster than anyone else. 7 of the top 10 times in the 4x100m relay race include Bolt. He probably could have made it as a semi-pro footballer too.
From sports that I hold an interest in
Football : Lionel Messi
Boxing: Sugar Ray Robinson
Tennis: Roger Federer
Formula 1: Michael Schumacher
Golf: Tiger Woods
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky
Basketball: Michael Jordan
Track and field: Usain Bolt
Rugby: Jonah Lomu
UFC: Khabib Nurmagomedov
the UFC is by far the most contentious one, wanted to pick Jon Jones but too many accusations, Silva had a few of his own and the end of his career tarnished his legacy somewhat, the only other real competitor for the GOAT would be GSP but khabibs record is incredible really, if he adds a few bigger name to his resume it’ll be indisputable.
Typing Michael Schumachers name reminds me how crazy that situation is (dare I call it in humane)
Football : Lionel Messi
Boxing: Sugar Ray Robinson
Tennis: Roger Federer
Formula 1: Michael Schumacher
Golf: Tiger Woods
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky
Basketball: Michael Jordan
Track and field: Usain Bolt
Rugby: Jonah Lomu
UFC: Khabib Nurmagomedov
the UFC is by far the most contentious one, wanted to pick Jon Jones but too many accusations, Silva had a few of his own and the end of his career tarnished his legacy somewhat, the only other real competitor for the GOAT would be GSP but khabibs record is incredible really, if he adds a few bigger name to his resume it’ll be indisputable.
Typing Michael Schumachers name reminds me how crazy that situation is (dare I call it in humane)
He is retired so of course they are going to say that. As for the second sentence, if I meet you you will suffer.EHF said Ivano Balic.
Nikola is pure power but Ivano is handball mozart. Those two are something like Messi and Ronaldo.
On a very serious note, it's really difficult to separate Balic, Karabatic and Sagosen. For me you can pick any of them as long as you acknowledge the others and Balic was a joy to watch.
Football: Lionel Messi
Basketball: Michael Jordan
Tennis: Roger Federer / Serena Williams
MMA: GSP
Boxing: Floyd Mayweather
Golf: Tiger Woods
Motorbike Racing: Valentino Rossi
Darts: Phil Taylor
Cricket: Shane Warne?
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky
F1: Michael Schumacher
Athletics: Usain Bolt
Snooker: Stephen Hendry
Basketball: Michael Jordan
Tennis: Roger Federer / Serena Williams
MMA: GSP
Boxing: Floyd Mayweather
Golf: Tiger Woods
Motorbike Racing: Valentino Rossi
Darts: Phil Taylor
Cricket: Shane Warne?
Hockey: Wayne Gretzky
F1: Michael Schumacher
Athletics: Usain Bolt
Snooker: Stephen Hendry
Yeah, Herman Maier of course!
Not really followed alpine skiing too much, apart from when Aamodt and Kjus were on the top.
Hirschers is obviously in there.
Guess we're both biased
"What do sport do you do?"
"I do UFC."
Sagosen? He is too young to be in same sentence with Nikola and Ivano. You meant Mikkel Hansen maybe?He is retired so of course they are going to say that. As for the second sentence, if I meet you you will suffer.
On a very serious note, it's really difficult to separate Balic, Karabatic and Sagosen. For me you can pick any of them as long as you acknowledge the others and Balic was a joy to watch.
Anyway, yeah...Balic is the Goat. Karabatic second best. As i said; Karabatic is a maschine. Literally i think that he is not human. 60 minutes defence and attack. Amazing stuff. But he is pure force. Pure power. Balic was a genius.
Hirscher over Stenmark I'd say. What about Fourcade for biathlon? I also prefer Bjoerndalen, but Martin could be there as well. Johannes Boe might eclipse them both, but I think he'll retire much sooner than both of them.
Good man, including Thorpe.
For wrestling, I’d add Buvaisar Saitiev, the greatest Freestyle wrestler ever, as Karelin competed in Greco/Roman. Karelin is without a doubt the GOAT of Greco/Roman though. Dude was unreal.
Jahangir Khan was pretty dominant in squash, he won like 550 games in a row.
Karabatic is a machine but he is like Lebron James also an elite technician and has a great tactical understanding of the game. And no I meant Sagosen, there is no objectivity involved I love him as much as I idolized Balic and I know that it's going a bit far.
It feels like Lebron James vs Michael Jordan, and I added Kevin Durant in the conversation.
Roller hockey: António Livramento (easy this one).
Futsal: Falcão par with Ricardinho (also very easy this one)
Handball: Mikkel Hansen (still playing): this guy is just a fantastic player.
Volleyball: Giba or Charles Kraly, but I think Giba has a little edge.
Futsal: Falcão par with Ricardinho (also very easy this one)
Handball: Mikkel Hansen (still playing): this guy is just a fantastic player.
Volleyball: Giba or Charles Kraly, but I think Giba has a little edge.
That is good comparison regarding those three. I like Sagosen alsoKarabatic is a machine but he is like Lebron James also an elite technician and has a great tactical understanding of the game. And no I meant Sagosen, there is no objectivity involved I love him as much as I idolized Balic and I know that it's going a bit far.
It feels like Lebron James vs Michael Jordan, and I added Kevin Durant in the conversation.
Don Bradman. He's so good that he's blocked from being picked in most cricket drafts.
If you're talking about the greatest in any sport, it's got to be between Bradman and Gretzky, surely. They're both complete statistical anomalies in their respective sports, 50% out in front of anybody else. I'm sure if we had ice hockey drafts, Gretzky would be banned as well.
Babe Ruth was both one of the best pitchers of his era early in his career and set hitting records way out of line for his period that would stand for decades. That will never happen again, so it might put him in this conversation.If you're talking about the greatest in any sport, it's got to be between Bradman and Gretzky, surely. They're both complete statistical anomalies in their respective sports, 50% out in front of anybody else. I'm sure if we had ice hockey drafts, Gretzky would be banned as well.
Only Willie Mays and and steroid turbocharged Barry Bonds come close as two-way players.
On the topic of Baseball Trout has a chance to have an higher career WAR than Babe Ruth. He is one of the biggest freaks ever and the hype isn't that big when you think about what we are witnessing. And of course Pujols is also someone with an impressive career.
Lemieux matched Gretzky at least in a couple of seasons. Bradman no-one is or was near.If you're talking about the greatest in any sport, it's got to be between Bradman and Gretzky, surely. They're both complete statistical anomalies in their respective sports, 50% out in front of anybody else. I'm sure if we had ice hockey drafts, Gretzky would be banned as well.
I disagree on Gretzky. LeMieux was his match in his era..... and goalies have improved so much that Crosby wouldn't be able to do that kind of damage if he wished. At his peak, Crosby was absolutely legit too. Ovechkin is a better scorer than Gretzky.... yet doesn't have a 92 goal season. For comparison on it, Gretzky scored 92 in a season when 8 goals was the average, Ovechkin 65 when it was 5.6... the minor edge is on Ovi if you do the maths, marginal at it's finest mind, but he definitely has the longevity over Gretzky.
Points records in NHL are handicapped by era similar to pitching records in MLB .... they aren't anomaly of talent, but of the era they came from.
Bradman was legit lightyear ahead of his peers... so yeah he's kinda uncontested.
Points records in NHL are handicapped by era similar to pitching records in MLB .... they aren't anomaly of talent, but of the era they came from.
Bradman was legit lightyear ahead of his peers... so yeah he's kinda uncontested.
For all round athlete checkout Babe Zaharias.
It does sort of feel like we’re taking Trout for granted, as he didn’t come in with the superstar persona of Bryce Harper. It is also not a great time for baseball in general.
Yeah in terms of athletic prowess it's hard to look past Bolt. There's just something quite 'raw' about being the fastest man of all time, and the fact that he was/is so far ahead of anyone else is incredible.
If you're talking about the greatest in any sport, it's got to be between Bradman and Gretzky, surely. They're both complete statistical anomalies in their respective sports, 50% out in front of anybody else. I'm sure if we had ice hockey drafts, Gretzky would be banned as well.
Might be a bit hipster, but I always preferred Mario Lemieux to Gretzky. Without some ridiculous career-threatening injuries (mostly his back injuries which made him unable to tie his own skates before matches) or ilnesses (cancer) then I believe he would have been up there with Gretzky in terms of stats. He scored at a similar rate to Gretzky (only a couple of matches seperated them I think in terms of matches needed to reach 600 goals). He was so skillful and agile for a big man.
So I asked this in the other thread and got no reply. Perhaps here is a better bet:
I have a question about Don Bradman. I don't follow cricket (to both my Grandfather and father's dismay when I was growing up) or know much about it so I'm curious as to why Bradman is so revered when sportsmen in other fields have had their records pretty much summarily dismissed or weighted in modern context?
Has cricket not gone through changes in the same way other sports have? If Bradman was alive today and up against modernised techniques in bowling and tactics(?) (does cricket have tactics?) would his batting averages still be so far and away from his nearest rivals in cricket's all-time great batsmen lists, etc.?
Nobody gives two figs about pre-war football records; basketball numbers from the 70's downward don't seem to count for much; most pre (or thereabouts) - war boxers except Henry Armstrong and Willie Pep get weighted down (Dempsey, Johnson etc.); Tennis players of the wooden racket era get short shrift, even Borg seemingly; golfers of the past are looked on as forefathers rather than the greatest. I'm sure you get the gist as there's hardly any sport I can think of where a line isn't drawn before a general point of acceptance of when it became the game we can objectively measure, came to pass. Does cricket escape this? Has it not changed at all over the centuries; is the bowling speed and technical level in the same ballpark as during Bradman's time?
Or is the argument that he's simply peerless in his era and that counts over any of the above? Someone like Arthur Friedenreich or even Dixie Dean were scoring marvels of their time, but nobody really gives a fig about either of them in football, Bradman the apex of batting prowess in his era, but is held as peerless, not only in his sport, but for some over all sport(!), can someone explain to me? what gives?
I have a question about Don Bradman. I don't follow cricket (to both my Grandfather and father's dismay when I was growing up) or know much about it so I'm curious as to why Bradman is so revered when sportsmen in other fields have had their records pretty much summarily dismissed or weighted in modern context?
Has cricket not gone through changes in the same way other sports have? If Bradman was alive today and up against modernised techniques in bowling and tactics(?) (does cricket have tactics?) would his batting averages still be so far and away from his nearest rivals in cricket's all-time great batsmen lists, etc.?
Nobody gives two figs about pre-war football records; basketball numbers from the 70's downward don't seem to count for much; most pre (or thereabouts) - war boxers except Henry Armstrong and Willie Pep get weighted down (Dempsey, Johnson etc.); Tennis players of the wooden racket era get short shrift, even Borg seemingly; golfers of the past are looked on as forefathers rather than the greatest. I'm sure you get the gist as there's hardly any sport I can think of where a line isn't drawn before a general point of acceptance of when it became the game we can objectively measure, came to pass. Does cricket escape this? Has it not changed at all over the centuries; is the bowling speed and technical level in the same ballpark as during Bradman's time?
Or is the argument that he's simply peerless in his era and that counts over any of the above? Someone like Arthur Friedenreich or even Dixie Dean were scoring marvels of their time, but nobody really gives a fig about either of them in football, Bradman the apex of batting prowess in his era, but is held as peerless, not only in his sport, but for some over all sport(!), can someone explain to me? what gives?
It's because he was so far ahead of his peers and did it in an era where pitches were like minefields. He was averaging around double than his peers during the time. In an all time context, averaging 100 runs per game is pretty much unheard of, great players normally finish on around 50-60 so you can see how far ahead he is. The fact that no one else has a similar record during that period shows it wasn't an easy thing to do. And as mentioned above, the pitches were very difficult to bat on (uncovered pitches, less stringent rules on bowlers ) so his technique had to be pretty much water tight, cricket historians often pointed out his technique was text book, so he wouldn't be behind in terms of the technical aspect of the game.
Wrt to how he would do in the modern age, most cricket experts would say he would do even better as batting has become easier (pitches, modern bats, rules generally favouring the batsmen), it's absurd to think he would average more than 100,the best players in this era are hovering around the 60 mark. It's quite similar to the Pele debate and how he would do in the modern era (better playing surfaces, footballs, protection from referees etc) .
Last edited:
Cricket in the 30s was actually a bit easier for batsmen than other eras (like the 20s and 10s for instance) so @Fortitude has a point in terms of it being easier to bat on. However, it would be almost the same as batting on some modern surface in my view so Bradman's record would still be similar. There were some exercises done to adjust for averages in the 30s and Bradman's average in particular in an attempt to normalize it, but even with those adjustments, Bradman was still ahead of the curve by some distance. His record is indeed peerless even if you make adjustments for the era he played and if I remember correctly, his nearest competition also tend to see their averages drop a bit when pitches and batting conditions are considered.
Having said that, one sport is not translatable to another so I think it's a different (and incorrect) thing to say that he is the overall sports GOAT.
I think it comes down to the pure stats he posted. I saw an article whIch quantified the numbers from other sports goats and their relation to their peers, and Bradman was still by far on top. It’s hard to find someone so far ahead of their peers in sport.
Something like football is tricker because there’s a few players from various eras that you can argue for, but in cricket the GOAT is undisputed. Which you mentioned but then argued about the era in which he played and how the likes of Dixie Dean tend to be overlooked in their respective sport because of the era in which they played. I think it comes down to the fact that though Dean had an incredible record, there were players around at the time that had similar stats at the time. With Bradman, his average was so far ahead of everyone else at the time (and for the rest of time I imagine) that he’s easily the GOAT of cricket.
Having said I agree with this. While Bradman stands out in the cricketing world, I don’t think that makes him ahead of any other sporting GOATS.
Thanks for the replies, all. It's just that with Bradman, I have almost no frame of reference, so his feats leave me with more questions than answers.
Another couple of branch questions I have revolve around whether bowlers (of whatever the modern era is) bowl better (technical) and faster (measurable) than those of Bradman's era?
If there's been a thread where all of this has been covered before I'd be grateful for the link, anyway!
Cheers.
Another couple of branch questions I have revolve around whether bowlers (of whatever the modern era is) bowl better (technical) and faster (measurable) than those of Bradman's era?
If there's been a thread where all of this has been covered before I'd be grateful for the link, anyway!
Cheers.
There may have similar batting pitches but what you don't get now is the 'sticky wickets', it's something modern batsmen don't have to deal with. As i mentioned before bowling rules were really lax back then, just look at this for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodyline
This was before the age of helmets too.
As for faster bowlers, who knows? They weren't measuring bowling speeds back then, but has the human body evolved that much in less than 100 years?
On a side note cricket historians always talk about the electric pace of Harold Larwood and Frank Tyson, these guys were bowling in the 20s/50's.
Last edited:
It's hard to say, but Larwood was supposed to be quite fast. Technology obviously wasn't what it is today but various tests indicate that he bowled somewhere around 140 to 160 km/h, which is quite comparable to modern day quicks.
Bradman doesn't really have a significant innings on a sticky wicket and it's probably the one blemish in his career if you can call it that.
Tyson was after Bradman's time. His performances against Larwood are, of course, well-documented. The bowlers who got him out were pretty much the best in the business. O'Reilly and Grimmett in FC cricket and mainly Hedley Verity in Tests. There is some debate that it was leg spin that might have given him a challenge but obviously not a significant one.
The bowlers who have got him out most often are Verity, Bedser, Larwood, and Tate, but their stats against him make for some woeful reading. None of them average under 50 against him and they are some of the best bowlers of that time.
The Tyson point was more to do with whether bowlers have become faster over the years, if Tyson was comparable in the 50's i'm sure bowlers 10/20 years before were fast too.