For me, Fed has surpassed Jordan, Brady and Gretzky

NonP

Hall of Fame
If you think Kobe is in any way shape or form a better overall defender than peak LeBron then I think we're done here. We have fundamentally different ideas of what defense is in that case.
Yeah we certainly do. Maybe you could list some of the things that you think LBJ can do but MJ can't, because I truly am mystified that anyone would argue LBJ is a better defender than MJ. Preferably something more specific than "anchoring" a defense.

The point of oRTG is that it's per 100 possession, it takes out pace, so that doesn't matter.
It actually does, because of the dramatic increase in 3-pt shot attempts which is why we're having this convo in the first place. One thing that has become clearer in recent years is that today's offense is becoming all layups/dunks/low-post shots, 3s or nothing. Perimeter shots (which of course were MJ/Kobe's bread and butter) are increasingly seen as inefficient, and regardless of its merits this small-ball mindset is why the recent ORtgs have become comparable to those from MJ's era where there were more world-class bigs and players overall were shooting closer to the rim. That's valid whether you consider points per game or not (I thought you did).

MJ's era, more points were scored per possession than in most of LeBron's prime despite fewer threes being shot and tons of mid range(inherently less efficient). Heavily suggests that it was easier for stars to get buckets because the amount of pressure a team can put on them is limited, because they will be the source of your most efficient offense when you don't have knockdown 3 point shooters, and easier to finish inside the paint for both bigs and slashers because there's less defensive pressure in terms of help defense. Whatever the case, it suggests that handchecking was not playing any significant part in slowing down offense compared to the impact the zone had.
That's patently untrue, for this one reason: when they eliminated hand-checking for the 2004-05 season the ORtg went up by a whopping 3.2, from 102.9 to 106.1. Going all the way back to MJ's debut ('84-85) the only seasons where you'll see a comparable year-to-year change are 1988-89 and 2011-12 when the ratings dipped from 105.0 to 102.2 and from 107.3 to 104.6 respectively, which is understandable as that's when the players had to skip 32/16 games due to the lockout and had less time to get into shape.

The early 00's still had plenty of high caliber bigs and ISO players, but offense and efficiency was at historic lows because teams were improving their defensive schemes, playing more physically, and the zone was allowed starting 2001. The defense the last couple years has been worse, no doubt about that, but the early 10's defense where everyone started adopting the Thibs Celtics ICE, it was probably harder for stars to get points in isolation than MJ's era. Then, the last few years, teams have countered by putting shooters on the weak side to prevent them from overloading the strong side and spacing the floor more, and offense has gone back up to late 80's/early 90's levels, which was when MJ's peak was.
Whenever you make such comprehensive rule changes there will necessarily be some adjusting time. And you must understand, zones are not used all that often to begin with as offenses usually can get into a groove after 3-4 zone sequences, and when they are it's mainly to slow down the game which of course is conducive to small ball. Also since defenders are no longer responsible for boxing out specific opponents you tend to see more offensive rebounds, and get the ball to a good passer in the FT area and you're getting wide-open shots - both of which again have led to today's (over-)reliance on 3s. After all why bother posting up when you know they'll be looking to clog up the lane and you can get the ball to a couple of good outside shooters (provided that you have 'em on the roster)?

Throw in the lack of hand-checking and you can see why I think MJ would do quite well in this era. In fact I remember longtime coach and writer Charley Rosen being asked once whether zones would limit Mike's scoring and he answered firmly in the negative and went on to explain how he'd be averaging 40 pts today instead. I think he was a bit over the top, but probably not too far off.

LBJ of today's numbers at the rim would likely fall because he is getting by with a lot of bully ball (but again he's much stronger than most wings so hand checking isn't shutting him down), but peak LBJ who was a menace attacking the rim with both speed and power would shred those defenses just as he did the ones of his time, probably more so because you're not stopping him 1 on 1 no matter how much you handcheck. And good luck handchecking a 265 pound dude moving at that speed.
But they wouldn't try to hand-check LBJ while he's already on his power drive. The point is to stop him from gaining his momentum in the first place, and then to force him left as he tends to go for jumpers on that side and give him as little room as possible by playing tight on his left hand. Again a difficult tactic as it'd often mean playing both sides of the court, but still doable when employed carefully.

And look, you obviously love the guy but you gotta quit making these tiresome excuses for LBJ with his previous teams. As @Noveson and countless others have pointed out few if any ATGs have faced easier paths to the finals than LeBron, and while I'll give you that MJ/Kobe had Phil just how many times has LBJ tried to overrule his own coach or even the management? (I know, I know, he had good reasons to, but you can see we're already going in circles.) Not to mention that luck is part of sports and it's debatable whether it even makes sense to talk of such things.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
Bradman is a cut above anyone else in test cricket as a batsman including Tendulkar (and this coming from a Tendulkar fan -- I am as much a Tendulkar fan as I am a fan of Federer). But @Dolgopolov85 is right that Steven Smith is putting up some amazing numbers. Still the quality of bowling/pitches combined is significantly lesser than what Tendulkar faced , IMO.
But Steven Smith's numbers are more comparable to the 5 year runs that Ponting/Sangakkara had, not Bradman.
Yeah I noticed afterwards Smith is still a fairly young guy. :D Again I wish I knew more so I can at least make decent sense of the numbers. Some of my friends/clients are from India and it'd be nice to be able to talk some cricket with them.

Thanks for sharing and I am not surprised by what you described about Africa. I too knew about Michael Jackson and Madonna growing up in the 90s but was only vaguely aware of Clinton. I can't tell if I would have heard about Jordan but for the fact that my cousin in the US was crazy about him. In any case, another cousin of mine who lived in India but moved in more affluent circles would get into NBA around the time I was getting into college so one way or the other I would have. For him, Kobe and Shaq were the guys. Don't think he's into NBA anymore.

There was something aspirational about America's cultural exports in the 90s (which probably explains the mega popularity of those pop/sports stars). From the outside looking in, it looks like that has faded somewhat. We began to get TV channels other than the Govt broadcaster in the 90s and many households comfortable with English watched sitcoms like Santa Barbara/Bold and the Beautiful. As opposed to which, a smaller but more affluent set of viewers watch series like Americans/Game of Thrones/Madmen/House of Cards. I have enjoyed the last two as well but they can never have the reach of the earlier feel-good programming. Even Silicon Valley is in essence a very cynical look at an industry that many of our software engineers aspire to be a part of. But we are drifting way off now...
I'm sure much of the consumption had to do with aspiration. As you may know it's been argued that the fall of communism was due in no small part to cultural exports from the capitalistic West and I think quite conclusively.

Though I'm a big movie buff I'm afraid my TV knowledge is woefully inadequate. :D (Have seen GoT and Mad Men, but don't think I've spent even a few minutes with any of the other series). Wish I could add something less bland about the TV shows other than that Game of Thrones is certainly a big global phenomenon (my feelings about it are decidedly mixed), but I do think you're right about the general cynicism of much of today's pop culture which does seem to me more popular with Western audiences than with our Eastern neighbors.

Re cricket, Tendulkar has amazing aggregate numbers like total runs scored and number of centuries. But Smith currently averages something in the 70s and in the 90s/100s in Australia. Bradman finished with an average of 99.94. So in that sense, Smith is putting up Bradmanesque numbers in a tough era.

A six in cricket is the number of runs awarded when the ball gets past the boundary line without ever bouncing. You could say it's like baseball's home run but I suppose there are fewer home runs compared to sixes. In cricket the bowler cannot bowl a full toss above waist height (that is, the stock baseball delivery). So the batsman is in a much better position to line up a huge whack. Used to be that sixes were fewer and Richards clearing boundaries at the huge Australian grounds evoked awe. But bats have improved so much that sixes are a dime a dozen now.
The problem for me with these terms is that I don't have a good frame of reference when I hear something like "centuries" or "boundary." Of course I've looked up the definitions, but they're still more like abstractions to me. I badly need to watch a full cricket match rather than keep consulting a reference. :D

And yes, the scoring isn't as prolific in baseball as in cricket, which BTW is the usual explanation given for the supposed inaccessibility of the sport. Let's just say I never found it terribly convincing - if baseball is "boring" for this reason then how come soccer is so popular? The real reason I suspect why beginners reject it out of hand is the same reason why most Americans don't bother with cricket. That kinda reminds me of someone. :p:oops:

Not sure how familiar you are with baseball but in the MLB any batter that manages to hit even 3 out of 10 pitches is considered stellar. Not surprisingly a power hitter tends to miss more than that, hence the feel-good factor for HRs. I'm guessing something similar is at work in cricket between accuracy and power.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Re cricket, Tendulkar has amazing aggregate numbers like total runs scored and number of centuries. But Smith currently averages something in the 70s and in the 90s/100s in Australia. Bradman finished with an average of 99.94. So in that sense, Smith is putting up Bradmanesque numbers in a tough era.
Nope, that's not correct.

Steven Smith averages 63.7 as of now.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/267192.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting

Smith's average at home is 77.25

In the last 4 years, he's averaged 75.92
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/267192.html?class=1;spanmin1=1+Jan+2014;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Not something unique from 2000 onwards though.

Ponting averaged 72.52 in a 4 year span from 2003-06.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/7133.html?class=1;spanmax2=1+Jan+2007;spanmin2=1+Jan+2003;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

Jack Kallis averaged 71.18 in a 4 year span from 2004-2007
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/45789.html?class=1;spanmax1=1+Jan+2008;spanmin1=1+Jan+2004;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

-------------------------------

This is hardly a tough era.

from 1971 to 1980, only 4 batsman average 50+ (min 50 times dismissed)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=outs;spanmax2=1+Jan+1981;spanmin2=1+Jan+1971;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

from 1981 to 1990, only 4 batsmen average 50+ (min. 50 times dismissed)

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=outs;spanmax2=1+Jan+1991;spanmin2=1+Jan+1981;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

from 1991 to 2000, only 4 batsmen averaged 50+ (min. 50 times dismissed).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=outs;spanmax2=1+Jan+2001;spanmin2=1+Jan+1991;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

with Tendulkar the clear cut leader as a batsman in general (in terms of average as well)



from that, it increased to a staggering 20 from 2001 to 2010.
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=outs;spanmax2=1+Jan+2011;spanmin2=1+Jan+2001;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting


it is 11 batsmen now from 2011 to current
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=outs;spanmin2=1+Jan+2011;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

This is Steven Smith's decade. Not a tough era. Just a decent one - In b/w the highest run scoring period (2001-10) and the 3 decades previous to that.
Steven Smith is the clear cut leader in general (in terms of average as well)

The batting averages in those periods show a similar trend as well :

71-80 : 32.39
81-90: 32.91
91-2000: 31.34
2001-10: 34.85
2011-current: 33.15

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;spanmax2=1+Jan+1981;spanmin2=1+Jan+1971;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;spanmax2=1+Jan+1991;spanmin2=1+Jan+1981;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;spanmax2=1+Jan+2001;spanmin2=1+Jan+1991;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;spanmax2=1+Jan+2011;spanmin2=1+Jan+2001;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;spanmin2=1+Jan+2011;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate


In Bradman's time (1928 to 1948) , there were 7 batsman averaging over 50 and it was slightly easier than the current decade: (less # of teams and players back then)
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin2=30;qualval2=outs;spanmax2=1+Jan+1949;spanmin2=1+Jan+1929;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

Batting average in that period = 33.51

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;spanmax2=1+Jan+1949;spanmin2=1+Jan+1928;spanval2=span;template=results;type=aggregate

@NonP : To sum it up, Steven Smith has put some phenomenal numbers in the last 4 years, but it ain't Bradmanesque. Current era is hardly tough, slightly tougher than Bradman's statistically. More varied for sure than Bradman's era.

I believe Bradman's average would drop by a maximum of 15 points in this era, if he batted the way he did in his time. So his average would be ~85 or above.
Still comfortably ahead of the next best.

Overall average is just one parameter, but for a simplified analysis (with a minimum no of innings , it works)

------------------------------------------

"Statisticians have analysed his career and compared it to other prominent sportsmen like Pele, Jack Nicklaus and Michael Jordan. The statisticians determined that none of the athletes named above dominated their sport to the same extent as Bradman. Indeed, Jordan, the legendary basketball player, would have needed to average 43 points per game to match Bradman, rather than the 30.1 he ended with."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/don-bradman-the-world-beater-909527.html

My knowledge of other sports apart from tennis and cricket isn't that great, but from what I know noone in basketball, golf, football, baseball, boxing & of course tennis comes close to towering above his peers as Bradman did with batting in cricket.


Some of his best years were lost due to WWII, but that SoB ( :D) came back at the age of 37 after WWII and still averaged over 100+ in the next 3 years. --- age at which most batsmen are in decline or retired !
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 716271

Guest
This is a common narrative but I addressed it earlier in the thread. How on earth were the 12-14 Heat super reams with Wade/Bosh having injury issues and Wade in severe decline because of his knees? How anyone could conclude they were super teams based on Wade's play in the 13 playoffs or 14 finals? It's truly mind boggling, and why I stay the hell away from most basketball forums. 2012 team in the playoffs was Bosh who was out a lot of games with injuries, a decent but somewhat inefficient Wade, and role players. 2013-2014 team in the playoffs was a heavily declined Wade, good Bosh, and role players. Those aren't super teams. LeBron was doing most of the heavy lifting on both ends of the ball.

The 12-14 regular seasons also provides a pretty large sample of how good LeBron is off ball. That was the only time he played with another competent playmaker and a decent coach with a system, and he thrived off ball. Unless you want to suggest that he should have given Kyrie the ball even more than he did (which was too much to begin with because Kyrie had extreme tunnel vision), or that LeBron should have extended the length of basketball games so that Love and Bosh as a 3rd option were still supposed to be the first 3rd options in history to get enough shots to average 25 instead of "merely" 20 on elite efficiency, or that early Cavs LeBron should have let the offense run more through Mo WIlliams, the dude who banged his mom, and Boobie Gibson, there's really no argument to be made. Who are all these players LeBron mitigated? I don't see one, unless you want to argue that LeBron is the reason that Wade had some stupid knee surgery in college which sent him into terminal decline after 2011.

LeBron has led 3 teams to 60+ wins, two of them with lottery-level supporting casts. Those were insane carry jobs, which speak to both his floor and ceiling raising capabilities. MJ led 4, and yes while on average those Bulls teams were better, his supporting casts and most importantly coaching were also much better. Also, the 2013 Heat would have made a run at 70 wins if Wade hadn't missed 13 games, and if Wade was healthy and not trash in the playoffs, they'd be remembered as one of the greatest teams ever. LeBron's luck with teammate injuries in the playoffs is ridiculous, and he's faced far tougher finals opponents than MJ. I fail to see where MJ is raising the ceilings of all his teams while LeBron is bringing them down. Which isn't to take away from MJ because he truly is a great ceiling raiser, but he also had the perfect blend of teammates and coaching around him. Also, a large part of system is based on coaching. You want to compare Lue to Phil Jackson? Lue X's and O's wise is probably the worst championship team NBA coaches of all time. Spo in Miami was a decent coach, the only one he's ever had, and those Heat teams had a great system that wasn't nearly as reliant on LeBron dominating the ball.
Come on man, I know you post on realgm ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
jordan belongs to the rare list of sports greatest athletes ever
that includes
ali
tyson
pele
maradona
bruce lee (in spite of being an actor not an athlete)
hulk hogan (in spite of not being in a real competitive sport
Completely agreed with your post until this part. How on earth can you put guys like Bruce Lee or Hulk Hogan in the same sentence as the legends above. Bruce Lee was an actor and has no business being in any conversation about athletes. Bruce Lee fanbiys are even more annoying than Fed fanboys (only Ronda Rousey fanboys are/were worse). If you call Hogan one of the greatest athletes it is difficult to take you seriously. Show Wrestling is no real competitive sport as you already pointed out. Every winning streak, every winning record Hogan has/had only exist because the commisioner/organizators decided so. Hogan even had a clause in his WCW contract that he had compete control ("creative control") about his matches. That guy could basically decide himself whether he wins or loses. If guys like Vince McMahon or Eric Bishof wanted to they could have made anyone heavyweight champion (as they once did when WCW decided to let Goldberg win 174 fights in a row or letting mediocre actor David Arquettes become WCW World Heavyweight champion). Those guys should not be lumped together with real sports legends like Pele. Jordan, Ali or Maradona
 
D

Deleted member 756486

Guest
Completely agreed with your post until this part. How on earth can you put guys like Bruce Lee or Hulk Hogan in the same sentence as the legends above. Bruce Lee was an actor and has no business being in any conversation about athletes. Bruce Lee fanbiys are even more annoying than Fed fanboys (only Ronda Rousey fanboys are/were worse). If you call Hogan one of the greatest athletes it is difficult to take you seriously. Show Wrestling is no real competitive sport as you already pointed out. Every winning streak, every winning record Hogan has/had only exist because the commisioner/organizators decided so. Hogan even had a clause in his WCW contract that he had compete control ("creative control") about his matches. That guy could basically decide himself whether he wins or loses. If guys like Vince McMahon or Eric Bishof wanted to they could have made anyone heavyweight champion (as they once did when WCW decided to let Goldberg win 174 fights in a row or letting mediocre actor David Arquettes become WCW World Heavyweight champion). Those guys should not be lumped together with real sports legends like Pele. Jordan, Ali or Maradona
Hogan body slammed Andre The Giant and Bruce Lee killed Chuck Norris so they are both worthy of being in this discussion. /s
 
I'm sure much of the consumption had to do with aspiration. As you may know it's been argued that the fall of communism was due in no small part to cultural exports from the capitalistic West and I think quite conclusively.
Absolutely. Especially in India, since it opened up in 91, there was a lot of curiosity and excitement about Western products of every kind and a mad rush to satiate the same. Consumption of TV series, films, MJ were all part of this.
Though I'm a big movie buff I'm afraid my TV knowledge is woefully inadequate. :D (Have seen GoT and Mad Men, but don't think I've spent even a few minutes with any of the other series). Wish I could add something less bland about the TV shows other than that Game of Thrones is certainly a big global phenomenon (my feelings about it are decidedly mixed), but I do think you're right about the general cynicism of much of today's pop culture which does seem to me more popular with Western audiences than with our Eastern neighbors.
Oh, absolutely, GoT is way more popular in an absolute sense but much of that is because tech has made it possible to reach every possible audience member on the planet. On the other hand, anybody in India who could watch Santa Barbara (which was only if you had a cable TV connection that included Star TV) did because, as I mentioned above, it was so new. We gaped in awe at the luxurious lifestyle of the characters on the show (Santa Barbara had its best run in Russia, followed by Croatia, India, Pakistan, China etc). It ran for 10 years in Russia followed by 9 in those other countries. After the meltdown, it seems there is a mea culpa feeling or what have you in the Western entertainment industry and they don't show off the lifestyle at least not in an aspirational sense anymore. The English speaking middle class in these countries has done well for itself in this period so even if that kind of lifestyle is still well beyond our reach, maybe we too don't gasp at the sight of it anymore.


Not sure how familiar you are with baseball but in the MLB any batter that manages to hit even 3 out of 10 pitches is considered stellar. Not surprisingly a power hitter tends to miss more than that, hence the feel-good factor for HRs. I'm guessing something similar is at work in cricket between accuracy and power.
Like I said, in cricket you are allowed to wait for the ball to bounce. In fact the bowler can't force you to play a volley above waist height, it's an illegal delivery/pitch. So this gives the batsman so many options. Prod the ball, run it down a gap and scurry for a run, steer it into a gap or just take a full blooded swat at it for six. But most importantly, you can miss as many deliveries as you wish to in cricket. A match in cricket is decided by either one team getting ten batsmen out or the other team chasing down the score set by the one that batted first. So this makes cricket less immediately exciting and more chess like.
 

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
So you mean Edberg was part of Sampras' Wimbledon competition? In that case, two words: Pete Sampras. 7 slams (dunk). If you can inflate Serena's Wimbledon competition by including players she didn't play there, I bloody well shall include an ATG who was defending champ at the event when Fed beat him fair and square.
Sure thing. You can have an old sampras.
Doesn't really change much of my point.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
How does that dispute serena having better grass court competitors. Having a wimbledon champion and finalist in the draw is still competition. Just because they never met doesn't decrease the competition especially when davenport was around for 6-7 years of serena career and was actually a viable threat to win wimbledon.

Who did fed have again?
A clay court player who struggled to even reach past the qf after 6 years and a guybwho only became competitive because wimbledon started to slow it down massively like the major he regularly wins at.
Competition my a**
Serena is not part of this discussion so I don't know why you continue to drag her name on this thread. This is about greatest male athlete of all time which is a cut above women athletes. Serena should be compare to Martina, Joyner-Kersee, Hamm, etc. So let's leave her out, please !!
 

Batzmo

New User
Nadal is the best ever male tennis player. Federer ha simpressive statistics but in the era of Nadal Djokovic and himself he is a distant third as from 2009 which is when all three were peak at the same time age wise, I.e over 21 the major count is Nadal 12, Djokovic 11 Federer 6. That is a significant margin.

To be the best a player has to be the best amongst his rivals.
You are clutching at straws. Nadal was nowhere near a great player until 2008,it’s just that Federer was poor on clay over 5 sets that allowed a teenage Nadal to win FO. I’m sorry I appreciate it Is disappointing but it’s not debatable that Nadal and Djokovic are both ahead of Federer in terms of greatness. Federer fan logic dictates this as Federer fans said Djokovic nole slam was in a weak era and his AO wins weren’t meaningful as it’s the least important major. Well karma has come back to bite I’d say
You are proving the point...the whole silly goat discussion can only take place when careers are over!! That is effectively what I am saying in a cheeky way! Why can’t people just enjoy the moment.
With all due respect in this thread we are talking about GOAT athletes and Nadal is not in this discussion as he isn’t even on the same page as these guys. I know it is hard for you to accept that 90 percent of the threads on this board and the media talk about Federer and no one is talking Nadal but you’re just going to have to accept this. As for GOAT athletes nadals body is to physically fragile and he is too feeble, with every single part of his body being injured from his left toe to his right rib to be in any GOAT athlete thread like this one. Plus too many mental fragileness issues with his loss of confidence in his “wilderness years” as Rafa fans put it.

To answer your point, since Nadal won his first slam fed has won more AO, Wimb, USO, WTF, more weeks at no 1 than Nadal. He did right in front of nadal but even if he didnt thats beside the point. Nadal isn’t the measuring stick for success at AO, Wimb, USO, WTF he isn’t even top 10. He’s basically Cilic or Wawrinka at these places where he just got hot and went on a streak to win one title.

Again with all due respect Nadals title count at AO, WIMB, USO, WTF is not even worth talking about when he isn’t even top 10 at them. 0 WTF so not top anything there. Your just going to have to accept that with 1 AO vs 6 for fed and the same kind of damning numbers at the other tournaments Nadal simply isn’t part of the discussion. Safin won USO once vs world no1 Sampras. Safin is a one time winner that is his place. Nadal won AO 1x that is his place. Same with Wimb, USO, WTF, world no 1 weeks etc. He is utterly outshined by multiple 5x champions etc and is not in the discussion.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
So you mean Edberg was part of Sampras' Wimbledon competition? In that case, two words: Pete Sampras. 7 slams (dunk). If you can inflate Serena's Wimbledon competition by including players she didn't play there, I bloody well shall include an ATG who was defending champ at the event when Fed beat him fair and square.
Likewise, Federer and Sampras played in 4 Wimbledons together too so I guess Sampras can be considered as Federer's competition there.

Also mention Ivanisevic who played 3 Wimbledons with Federer - he's a 1-time champion and 4 time finalist.
 
Last edited:

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
The batting averages in those periods show a similar trend as well :

71-80 : 32.39
81-90: 32.91
91-2000: 31.34
2001-10: 34.85
2011-current: 33.15


I believe Bradman's average would drop by a maximum of 15 points in this era, if he batted the way he did in his time. So his average would be ~85 or above.
Still comfortably ahead of the next best.

Overall average is just one parameter, but for a simplified analysis (with a minimum no of innings , it works)

------------------------------------------

"Statisticians have analysed his career and compared it to other prominent sportsmen like Pele, Jack Nicklaus and Michael Jordan. The statisticians determined that none of the athletes named above dominated their sport to the same extent as Bradman. Indeed, Jordan, the legendary basketball player, would have needed to average 43 points per game to match Bradman, rather than the 30.1 he ended with."

Some of his best years were lost due to WWII, but that SoB ( :D) came back at the age of 37 after WWII and still averaged over 100+ in the next 3 years. --- age at which most batsmen are in decline or retired !
First thing, Thank You for a fantastic post :)

Now for all the talk about modern cricketers, let consider a few things.

Helmets that favour Batsment.
Refined Body Padding that favour Batsmen.
Oversized and Well Balanced Cricket Bats that favour Batsmen.
Cricket Ovals that are usually smaller than in the past thanks to Occupational Health and Safety Requirements that favour Batsmen.
Modern cricket pitches that are fine tuned to benefit Batsmen.
Modern regulations that favour Batsmen.
Modern Decision Review Systems that favour Batsmen.

Are you getting my drift.

IMO, the toughest era in World Cricket were the years between 1960 and 1977 (just prior to the advent of World Series Cricket). Go there to find your greates players. Bradman might have been the best Batsman of all time. But Sir Garfield Sobers was probably the greatest Cricketer of all. Bradman scored a lot of runs, but how many wickets did he take? Sobers did both.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
I believe Bradman's average would drop by a maximum of 15 points in this era, if he batted the way he did in his time. So his average would be ~85 or above.
Still comfortably ahead of the next best.

Overall average is just one parameter, but for a simplified analysis (with a minimum no of innings , it works)

------------------------------------------

"Statisticians have analysed his career and compared it to other prominent sportsmen like Pele, Jack Nicklaus and Michael Jordan. The statisticians determined that none of the athletes named above dominated their sport to the same extent as Bradman. Indeed, Jordan, the legendary basketball player, would have needed to average 43 points per game to match Bradman, rather than the 30.1 he ended with."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/don-bradman-the-world-beater-909527.html

My knowledge of other sports apart from tennis and cricket isn't that great, but from what I know noone in basketball, golf, football, baseball, boxing & of course tennis comes close to towering above his peers as Bradman did with batting in cricket.


Some of his best years were lost due to WWII, but that SoB ( :D) came back at the age of 37 after WWII and still averaged over 100+ in the next 3 years. --- age at which most batsmen are in decline or retired ![/USER]
Thanks, that is indeed unbelievable on Bradman's part. I'm guessing you based that 15-point deduction on historical trends rather than a more systematic analysis? Obviously there are problems with this approach but you probably aren't far off, which means you were right about even your idol being some distance behind. :D Is there any area where Tendulkar has a significant edge over Bradman?

FYI I follow only two sports myself (tennis and basketball), and baseball if you count the MLB postseason only (again it's the sport I grew up with). As to the others I'll watch the biggest events (World Cup, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, etc.) if I have time, and read what's in the general news, but that's just about it.

Anyway I'm guessing (ice) hockey fans would argue Wayne Gretzky's statistical dominance might well be comparable to Don's, but since I don't feel qualified to comment let me just mention two close equivalents in other sports that I can think of. You might have seen me talk about Babe Ruth earlier. Every baseball fan knows about his home-run record (which has since been broken), but what really sets Ruth apart is the fact that he excelled both as a pitcher and as a batter, which was rare even in his own era and will almost certainly remain unchallenged as nobody chooses to focus on both batting and pitching anymore. Now there's the pesky issue of black players being excluded from the league throughout his career, but given the sheer scope of his achievements pretty much every expert agrees that he wouldn't be held back by much today (kinda remind you of someone, eh?).

And in basketball there was this guy named Wilt Chamberlain who's famous for two scoring achievements that will never be equaled: an average 50.4 points in the 1961-62 season and the legendary 100-point game on 3/2/1962. Again there are caveats: the pace was much quicker back in his salad days, and defensive schemes have gotten more sophisticated over time. But the guy was strong as an ox who could run and jump like deer despite being 7' 1", quite possibly the most athletic strongman in the history of basketball. (Wiki has this typical sentence about his collegiate feats: "He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, shot-putted 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.") So yeah, he'd still be a monster today. :D

But then even these caveats aren't without caveats. One could easily imagine Ruth being even more dominant had he concentrated on batting from the very beginning, and I've seen several basketball historians argue that, contrary to popular wisdom, the big centers in Wilt's heyday were every bit as strong as their more illustrious successors and he would have a field day today as the game has been shifting more and more to outside shooters. As you can see these inter-sport comparisons ain't easy, if not impossible. :confused:

Completely agreed with your post until this part. How on earth can you put guys like Bruce Lee or Hulk Hogan in the same sentence as the legends above. Bruce Lee was an actor and has no business being in any conversation about athletes. Bruce Lee fanbiys are even more annoying than Fed fanboys (only Ronda Rousey fanboys are/were worse). If you call Hogan one of the greatest athletes it is difficult to take you seriously. Show Wrestling is no real competitive sport as you already pointed out. Every winning streak, every winning record Hogan has/had only exist because the commisioner/organizators decided so. Hogan even had a clause in his WCW contract that he had compete control ("creative control") about his matches. That guy could basically decide himself whether he wins or loses. If guys like Vince McMahon or Eric Bishof wanted to they could have made anyone heavyweight champion (as they once did when WCW decided to let Goldberg win 174 fights in a row or letting mediocre actor David Arquettes become WCW World Heavyweight champion). Those guys should not be lumped together with real sports legends like Pele. Jordan, Ali or Maradona
It's actually not so outrageous if you think of it as a list of the most influential athletic figures. Hulk Hogan is obviously a joke regardless but I seriously doubt Bruce Lee is less iconic than any of the names mentioned so far, and now that I recall it was while my former roommate and I were talking about Lee that our conversation turned to the world's most famous people. Also calling Bruce Lee an actor is almost as misleading as calling Jordan the same thing. Sure MJ did act in that Bugs Bunny movie once, but that's not what he's known for. :D Lee is a martial arts legend and we should treat/respect him as such. Besides how can you not love this Asian midget who went on to conquer the world through the sheer force of his biceps and spunk?

Absolutely. Especially in India, since it opened up in 91, there was a lot of curiosity and excitement about Western products of every kind and a mad rush to satiate the same. Consumption of TV series, films, MJ were all part of this.
Jackson or Jordan? :D But yeah, I'm guessing it was kinda like Thriller dropped on your country about 8-9 years later. I was barely walking when it came out so I can only imagine what it must've felt like. (I got to experience the other MJ phenomenon firsthand but obviously it's not quite the same thing.)

Oh, absolutely, GoT is way more popular in an absolute sense but much of that is because tech has made it possible to reach every possible audience member on the planet. On the other hand, anybody in India who could watch Santa Barbara (which was only if you had a cable TV connection that included Star TV) did because, as I mentioned above, it was so new. We gaped in awe at the luxurious lifestyle of the characters on the show (Santa Barbara had its best run in Russia, followed by Croatia, India, Pakistan, China etc). It ran for 10 years in Russia followed by 9 in those other countries. After the meltdown, it seems there is a mea culpa feeling or what have you in the Western entertainment industry and they don't show off the lifestyle at least not in an aspirational sense anymore. The English speaking middle class in these countries has done well for itself in this period so even if that kind of lifestyle is still well beyond our reach, maybe we too don't gasp at the sight of it anymore.
If the numbers they put out for GoT are accurate (obviously a big if) then the show probably comes as close to approximating the communal experience of TV shows of bygone eras as is possible today. But yeah, I see where you're coming from.

Just watched a few clips of Santa Barbara for the first time. Let's just say I won't be revisiting it anytime soon. :D Today's prestige TV shows are clearly superior cultural products but then there are still many things I object to: The Sopranos and Breaking Bad's disingenuous exploitation of violence while purporting to condemn it, Mad Men's similar treatment of misogyny, The Wire's brand of cynicism that flatters the audience for their smug complacency, etc. I suppose the recent shows overall are worthy investments of our time, but in my book all this so-called peak TV still has a long way to go before it can challenge the best of cinema.

Like I said, in cricket you are allowed to wait for the ball to bounce. In fact the bowler can't force you to play a volley above waist height, it's an illegal delivery/pitch. So this gives the batsman so many options. Prod the ball, run it down a gap and scurry for a run, steer it into a gap or just take a full blooded swat at it for six. But most importantly, you can miss as many deliveries as you wish to in cricket. A match in cricket is decided by either one team getting ten batsmen out or the other team chasing down the score set by the one that batted first. So this makes cricket less immediately exciting and more chess like.
Again too much jargon for me. :oops: I did know you're allowed to bounce the ball in cricket but the rest won't make much sense to me until I actually see a corresponding video. I'll holla at you and abmk when I have the time... and patience.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Thanks, that is indeed unbelievable on Bradman's part. I'm guessing you based that 15-point deduction on historical trends rather than a more systematic analysis? Obviously there are problems with this approach but you probably aren't far off, which means you were right about even your idol being some distance behind. :D Is there any area where Tendulkar has a significant edge over Bradman?

FYI I follow only two sports myself (tennis and basketball), and baseball if you count the MLB postseason only (again it's the sport I grew up with). As to the others I'll watch the biggest events (World Cup, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, etc.) if I have time, and read what's in the general news, but that's just about it.

Anyway I'm guessing (ice) hockey fans would argue Wayne Gretzky's statistical dominance might well be comparable to Don's, but since I don't feel qualified to comment let me just mention two close equivalents in other sports that I can think of. You might have seen me talk about Babe Ruth earlier. Every baseball fan knows about his home-run record (which has since been broken), but what really sets Ruth apart is the fact that he excelled both as a pitcher and as a batter, which was rare even in his own era and will almost certainly remain unchallenged as nobody chooses to focus on both batting and pitching anymore. Now there's the pesky issue of black players being excluded from the league throughout his career, but given the sheer scope of his achievements pretty much every expert agrees that he wouldn't be held back by much today (kinda remind you of someone, eh?).

And in basketball there was this guy named Wilt Chamberlain who's famous for two scoring achievements that will never be equaled: an average 50.4 points in the 1961-62 season and the legendary 100-point game on 3/2/1962. Again there are caveats: the pace was much quicker back in his salad days, and defensive schemes have gotten more sophisticated over time. But the guy was strong as an ox who could run and jump like deer despite being 7' 1", quite possibly the most athletic strongman in the history of basketball. (Wiki has this typical sentence about his collegiate feats: "He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, shot-putted 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.") So yeah, he'd still be a monster today. :D

But then even these caveats aren't without caveats. One could easily imagine Ruth being even more dominant had he concentrated on batting from the very beginning, and I've seen several basketball historians argue that, contrary to popular wisdom, the big centers in Wilt's heyday were every bit as strong as their more illustrious successors and he would have a field day today as the game has been shifting more and more to outside shooters. As you can see these inter-sport comparisons ain't easy, if not impossible. :confused:
Based on trends + many years of watching cricket.

Tendulkar has the clear edge over Bradman as far as total number of runs scored in test career goes. (so do many other batsmen). Also number of test centuries (>=100 runs in an innings) where a few batsmen are better as well. But for quality, Bradman is a cut above in tests. They didn't play as many tests in Bradman's time as they do now plus his career was interrupted by World War II, which is why he has less number of runs and centuries.

There's of course 2 other formats of the game - One day international cricket (started in 1971) and T20s (2005)
Tendulkar is arguably GOAT batsman in ODI cricket.

re: inter-sport comparision, of course they are too tough. Hell, you have enough problems within a given sport as is. :D
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
[QUOTE="abmk, post: 12033838, member: 45647"
Tendulkar is arguably GOAT batsman in ODI cricket.
[/QUOTE]

Sachin maybe the Batsman.

Adam Gilchrist is the GOAT ODI Cricketer!

ODI Cricket became a different sport on his arrival and success.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
[QUOTE="abmk, post: 12033838, member: 45647"
Tendulkar is arguably GOAT batsman in ODI cricket.

Sachin maybe the Batsman.

Adam Gilchrist is the GOAT ODI Cricketer!
ODI Cricket became a different sport on his arrival and success.[/QUOTE]

disagree. Gilchrist is an important cricketer, but hardly the ODI GOAT cricketer.
I'd easily rate Sachin, Richards, Akram higher than him , for starters.

Gilchrist greatest contribution was to change the perception of wk-batting in tests (along with Andy Flower) IMO. ODI was 2nd.
Jayasuriya/Kaluwitharana (&Sachin) had already altered the perception of ODI batting as an opener even before GIlchrist.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
First thing, Thank You for a fantastic post :)

Now for all the talk about modern cricketers, let consider a few things.

Helmets that favour Batsment.
Refined Body Padding that favour Batsmen.
Oversized and Well Balanced Cricket Bats that favour Batsmen.
Cricket Ovals that are usually smaller than in the past thanks to Occupational Health and Safety Requirements that favour Batsmen.
Modern cricket pitches that are fine tuned to benefit Batsmen.
Modern regulations that favour Batsmen.
Modern Decision Review Systems that favour Batsmen.

Are you getting my drift.

IMO, the toughest era in World Cricket were the years between 1960 and 1977 (just prior to the advent of World Series Cricket). Go there to find your greates players. Bradman might have been the best Batsman of all time. But Sir Garfield Sobers was probably the greatest Cricketer of all. Bradman scored a lot of runs, but how many wickets did he take? Sobers did both.
Sobers over Bradman as a cricketer is a feasible argument.
You could argue for Imran Khan as well. Kallis as well.

re: modern cricket. The decision review system actually favours the bowlers slightly more.

While the pitches/grounds/bats etc. favour batsman in ODIs, T20s a LOT, we are seeing a clear pull-back in tests to an extent
some of the pitches are tough, batsmen having to apply themselves really well. See the recent India-SA test series for instance.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
ODI Cricket became a different sport on his arrival and success.

disagree. Gilchrist is an important cricketer, but hardly the ODI GOAT cricketer.
I'd easily rate Sachin, Richards, Akram higher than him , for starters.

Gilchrist greatest contribution was to change the perception of wk-batting in tests (along with Andy Flower) IMO. ODI was 2nd.
Jayasuriya/Kaluwitharana (&Sachin) had already altered the perception of ODI batting as an opener even before GIlchrist.
Don't really want to hijack the thread.

Seriously, would you pick any other player BEFORE Gilchrist in your GOAT ODI Team? If so, who?

The only other players that I think would be contendors would be Miller, Sobers, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Kallis, perhaps Hadlee. Versatility is key for ODI cricket. Sobers is probably 2nd pick for me behind Gilchrist because Sobers was so versatile.

All the guys you mention are incredible cricketers but not versatile enough for the modern ODI game IMO.
 

Gizo

Hall of Fame
I'll give you credit for including China, but here's an incomplete list of other countries/continents where most would acknowledge basketball is a major sport:

- Europe (much of it at any rate)
- Latin America (ditto)
- Philippines (a Filipino friend once confirmed it's easily the #1 sport there in both participation and viewership)
- Japan (firsthand experience)
- South Korea (ditto)
- Turkey
- Australia (your own, I believe)
- Several African countries including Angola, Egypt, Tunisia, Cameroon, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria
Agreed. It's amazing how many people underestimate just how big a sport basketball is worldwide, and just how much global reach it has. I agree that it is the undisputed no. 1 sport in the Philippines (the 12th most populous county in the world). The basketball mania over there is even more impressive if you consider that their team has never qualified for an Olympic basketball tournament, and until 2014 when 36 years without qualifying for a FIBA World Cup. It is also one of the most popular sports in Indonesia (the 4th most populous country in the world), and the country will co-host the 2023 FIBA World Cup, plus Taiwan.

In the Middle East I've been to Lebanon and many people I met said that it's actually overtaken football/soccer as the most popular sport there. Plus it is also very popular in Israel, Iran, Jordan and war-torn Syria.

I read stats from a few years ago showing it was the among the 10 most popular sports to both play and watch in India, so in many countries where it is not among the top sports, it is still on the radar.

In Latin America the sport is rapidly growing in popularity in Mexico (I've been there many times), as may have dethroned baseball as the no. 1 sport in Puerto Rico. Plus of course it is popular in Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Panama etc.

In Africa, it may be the most popular sport ahead of football in South Sudan, is the undisputed no. 2 sport in Nigeria (the 7th most populous countries in the world), and is rapidly growing in popularity in other countries such as Senegal and Mozambique.

In Oceania, I read the sport is very much on the rise in New Zealand.

And in Europe alongside being the second or third most popular sport in numerous countries, it's the undisputed no. 1 sport in Lithuania. In the UK, basketball participation numbers are rising (it's the second most popular team sport across the 11-16 age bracket in terms of participation), and I see inner-city basketball courts in London full all the time.

The only sports that have more global reach than basketball are football/soccer and athletics/track and field. Weighing together all factors such as participation, global reach, mainstream popularity, TV audiences, money etc, I would say that it is comfortably the second biggest sport in the world behind football/soccer. Given that it is a cheap and accessible sport, and is soon as 'cool' by many young people, it has a very bright future as well.

In terms of money, the best paid players outside the NBA probably earn more money in a year than players finishing at the lower end of the ATP year end top 10, and the 50th best paid player outside the NBA would easily earn more annually than the ATP year no. 50 (and the disparity is far greater when you consider that tennis players have much higher expenses).
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Don't really want to hijack the thread.

Seriously, would you pick any other player BEFORE Gilchrist in your GOAT ODI Team? If so, who?

The only other players that I think would be contendors would be Miller, Sobers, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Kallis, perhaps Hadlee. Versatility is key for ODI cricket. Sobers is probably 2nd pick for me behind Gilchrist because Sobers was so versatile.

All the guys you mention are incredible cricketers but not versatile enough for the modern ODI game IMO.
Sachin, Richards, Akram not versatile enough for the modern game ? Are you serious ?

Sachin and Viv could bowl and were pretty good fielders. Akram could bat as well.

You are focussing too much on all-rounders.

First 2 on any all-time ODI sheet would be Sachin and Viv.

Gilchrist would be a pretty good choice for a WK-opening batsman, but I could also play another specialist opener and have Dhoni in the ODI team for ODIs.

Kallis would definitely not make it in an all-time ODI XI !
 
Last edited:

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Didn't Jordan also win at age 36? So, right now they are equals, but if Fed wins at age 38, surely the debate is over.

Fed would eclipse even the great Waldner who won silver at age 38.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
It's actually not so outrageous if you think of it as a list of the most influential athletic figures. Hulk Hogan is obviously a joke regardless but I seriously doubt Bruce Lee is less iconic than any of the names mentioned so far, and now that I recall it was while my former roommate and I were talking about Lee that our conversation turned to the world's most famous people. Also calling Bruce Lee an actor is almost as misleading as calling Jordan the same thing. Sure MJ did act in that Bugs Bunny movie once, but that's not what he's known for. :D Lee is a martial arts legend and we should treat/respect him as such. Besides how can you not love this Asian midget who went on to conquer the world through the sheer force of his biceps and spunk
Jordan did one movie where he played himself. This is not the reason he is famous. Lee did countless movies, he did that for a living and is only famous because of these movies. There is not only one single recorded fight of Lee, he never participated in any sports competition, neither in karate world championship, nor boxing nor anything. Yes, he trained under Ip Man and was a Martial arts teacher, but he sure as hell did not become famous for his sports achievements. You could better compare him to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who competed in some sports (in this case bodybuilding and strong men competition) but is famous for doing other stuff (movies and politics). And I have nothing against Lee, actually like his movies, what i really dislike however, are his moronic fans who claim that he is some kind of a God, even though he never ever proved his martial arts in serious competition. You will easily find people in sports forums claiming with a straight face that Lee would beat Muhammad Ali under boxing rules or destroy every modern MMA fighter in a street fight.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
And in basketball there was this guy named Wilt Chamberlain who's famous for two scoring achievements that will never be equaled: an average 50.4 points in the 1961-62 season and the legendary 100-point game on 3/2/1962. Again there are caveats: the pace was much quicker back in his salad days, and defensive schemes have gotten more sophisticated over time. But the guy was strong as an ox who could run and jump like deer despite being 7' 1", quite possibly the most athletic strongman in the history of basketball. (Wiki has this typical sentence about his collegiate feats: "He ran the 100-yard dash in 10.9 seconds, shot-putted 56 feet, triple jumped more than 50 feet, and won the high jump in the Big Eight track and field championships three straight years.") So yeah, he'd still be a monster today.
Couldn't agree more. Big Wilt Fan here. If we are discussing the greatest athlete of all time, then Wilt would definitely be my pick (with Bo Jackson close second, and also some mentioning of Jim Brown and Jim Thorpe). Apart from Wilt's achievements in basketball and decathlon it is interesting to note, that he was HOF not only in basketball but also in volleyball, was great in racketball and tennis and could allegedly bench press 600 pounds (according to Arnold Schwarzenegger Wilt could do triceps extension of 170 lbs while the biggest and strongest bodybuilders in their gym could only do 130). Talking about overall athletic abilities this guy is light years ahead of the likes of Federer, Messi etc.
 

BGod

Legend
Nobody is passing Brady.

9 Super Bowl Appearances with 6 wins in that sport is bananas. Won't be touched.
 

tennisfan2015

Hall of Fame
Re cricket, Tendulkar has amazing aggregate numbers like total runs scored and number of centuries. But Smith currently averages something in the 70s and in the 90s/100s in Australia. Bradman finished with an average of 99.94. So in that sense, Smith is putting up Bradmanesque numbers in a tough era.
Bradman would have been 100 if it hadn't been for that last duck.
 

axlrose

Professional
I know Jordan, there's a stupid cartoon of WB in which he played a role.

I know Tom Brady, Ted and John Bennett tried to steal his sperm.

I don't know Gretzky.

But I know all the sports they play are leagues below football.
 

mahesh69a

Rookie
"What does that have to do with recognizing that Tom Brady is one of the top 10 Athletes of all time? "
Not denying anything about Tom Brady or Babe Ruth - just commenting on the post to which you replied (there are sports played only by one country, most powerful though it may currently be).
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Interesting discussion about Tom Brady's place in world sports.

Many people I talk to about NFL who have been following it for decades say that Joe Montana was probably the Greatest NFL Quarterback of All Time.

The first time I ever heard of Joe Montana was when he appeared on The Brady Bunch back in the early 1970s. But Thanks to the wonders of the Internet I have become a little more familiar with his exploits on the field. He seemed to be the Man's Man QB. Way ahead of his time.

What do you Americans who have been following NFL think of Joe Montana? Where do you see him in the Pantheon of NFL? (Is comparing Joe with Tom, like comparing Rod with Roger, or Bjorn with Rafa?)
 
Interesting discussion about Tom Brady's place in world sports.

Many people I talk to about NFL who have been following it for decades say that Joe Montana was probably the Greatest NFL Quarterback of All Time.

The first time I ever heard of Joe Montana was when he appeared on The Brady Bunch back in the early 1970s. But Thanks to the wonders of the Internet I have become a little more familiar with his exploits on the field. He seemed to be the Man's Man QB. Way ahead of his time.

What do you Americans who have been following NFL think of Joe Montana? Where do you see him in the Pantheon of NFL? (Is comparing Joe with Tom, like comparing Rod with Roger, or Bjorn with Rafa?)
Montana and Manning are the contrarian picks for better than Brady/GOAT like picking RAFA.
 

Service Ace

Hall of Fame
Montana and Manning are the contrarian picks for better than Brady/GOAT like picking RAFA.
Only obtuse homers could consider Manning the GOAT at this point. He's closer to Murray than Rafa in the cross sports comparison with a piddly 2 rings to show for his efforts. Brady blew by Montana with this past Super Bowl win. He's far more then consensus GOAT in his sport than anyone of the Big 3 are in tennis. Rings and stats wise he's literally the Jordan of the NFL.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
The first time I ever heard of Joe Montana was when he appeared on The Brady Bunch
I just reviewed my previous post and I can't believe I posted this statement without seeing the connection.

Perhaps Joe was Psychic? He appeared with the BRADY family and gave advice to a young BRADY. LOL!
 
Its very easy but time consuming to calculate GOAT of GOATS

-You take 3-5 most important metrics in each sport, compare how good they did compared to the rest in their sport (Points awarded)
-How many kids are training in that sport, the more popular the more points

Even though Michael Phelps olympic record is amazing, Fooball got atleast 100x more competition.


So if someone with good math, and about 30+hours to waste.. you could calculate the goat of the goat.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
Hey, we're still debating tennis GOAThood, and we're going to jump this shark? Even more impossible.
As some of us aren't ready to concede GOAThood to Fed - how can anyone when arguably the three GOATs are all active - this is very premature. If fun of a sort.

By the way, in the NHL, Gretzky put up stupid numbers, but in pure talent and all_around play, give me Orr.

In the NFL, there are too many different positions. QB is the Marquee position, so Brady is the greatest modern winner. Aaron Rodgers is the best QB I've ever seen. But we have other positions dominated by Jerry Rice, LT, some would say Jim Brown, etc.

Back to Fed: let him be the mythical tennis GOAT first and then try the impossible of comparing him or Rafa or Novak to golfers and swimmers, etc.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Federer has passed the 2 white boys, but not Jordan - the ultimate, undisputed GOAT.
Federer has yet to pass Laver.

And Djokovic is currently in the process of passing both of them.

So current GOAT status ... Nicklaus, Pele, Rossi, Senna, Laver, Jordan, Federer, Bradman, Ruth, Gretzky, Djokovic, Brady and the rest.
 
Last edited:
Top