Nice job playing the victim. Moving on. You still don't get what an appeal to authority is. Look up argumentum ad verecundiam. And you also don't grasp that the "experts" you cite are either former/current pros whose "expert opinion" is bound to be biased by how they felt they matched up against their competitors at the time, or prominent pundits with big megaphones at their disposal who tend to hype up the present for a variety of reasons, not least of all to keep up the public's interest in their chosen profession. If you put so much stock in "expert opinion" you might want to survey the historians, the seasoned instructors and the old-timers without such public profiles for their own expert opinions. I can tell how many of them you personally know or have bothered to ask. And speaking of the historians, you might also want to take some time to read some of their commentaries, which are usually measured and balanced unlike those of the "experts" you accept so blindly. They're the ones who will be writing history, not those mass-media pundits. Irrelevant. This is an issue of simple fact-checking. You didn't simply argue that the number of titles won isn't a reliable metric. You also said those smaller titles came from as "Mickey Mouse tournaments." Interesting how you've changed your tune. Bad analogy. We're not talking about a Joe Bloggs, but some of the all-time greats of the game whose achievements have earned them a place in the GOAT discussion. I never said I reject either. Unlike you I just don't take them on face value. Yeah, you sure understood my "argument." And intentional absence of an argument equals inability to construct one in that fecund mind of yours. Gotcha.