Peak/Prime is just suggestion, not a binding clause

[nolefam_2024]

Discussions about whether a player is "past their prime" or "out of their peak" often become contentious because they oversimplify complex performance dynamics. Here's a breakdown of how to approach these debates more constructively:

Understanding Peak vs. Prime​

1. Prime refers to a sustained period when an athlete consistently performs at their best level. For tennis players, this is often between ages 21-29, with the absolute peak typically around 24-28 years old, as shown by performance metrics like Grand Slam wins and ranking points.
2. Peak refers to moments or seasons of exceptional performance, which can occur both inside and outside the "prime" years. Players can achieve peak-level tennis even after their prime by adapting their playstyle, equipment, or fitness regimen.

Debunking Misconceptions​

• Binary Thinking: Arguments that dismiss a player's capabilities entirely because they are no longer in their prime ignore the nuances of athletic performance. For example, players like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic have demonstrated peak-level performances well into their 30s.
• Opponent Context: A player's performance should also be evaluated based on the quality of their opponents at the time. Facing an opponent playing at their best can make any victory more significant, regardless of whether the player is in their prime.

A Data-Driven Approach​

Using tools like Ultimate Tennis Statistics or Elo ratings can provide a more objective framework for these discussions:

• Assign difficulty rankings to opponents based on their form and historical performance.
• Analyze trends in winning percentages and rankings over time instead of relying on subjective judgments about "prime" years.

Conclusion​

Rather than making blanket statements about a player being "past it," consider the broader context: their ability to adapt, moments of peak performance, and the strength of their competition. This nuanced approach can help debunk overly simplistic arguments and foster more meaningful discussions.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Players like Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz are at the early stages of their careers, in contrast to the 1980s when players often peaked between the ages of 19 and 22.

Today, players tend to hit their prime later, around 22-23 years old. For instance, Jannik Sinner appears to have entered his prime in late 2023, following the US Open, while Carlos Alcaraz, at age 21, is still evolving and coming into his own. Comparing them to the Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic is challenging due to the unprecedented longevity of their peak performances. Federer played peak tennis until age 36, Nadal until 36, and Djokovic continues to excel at age 37. The remarkable consistency and adaptability of these legends set a high bar that newer players like Sinner and Alcaraz are just beginning to approach.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Tsonga's 2008 Wimbledon performance and his 2014 victory in Canada both represent peak moments in his career, despite being six years apart.

 

[Sport]

Prime and peak are synonyms as per dictionary definitions.

 

[nolefam_2024]

@Pheasant @Winner Sinner @RaulRamirez @Hitman @NoleFam
@zagor

 

[nolefam_2024]

Prime and peak are synonyms as per dictionary definitions.

But we are definitely not talking about dictionary definitions.

We say peak performance, prime years.

 

[nolefam_2024]

.

 

[NoleFam]

Most sports fans are interested in this topic but tennis fans seem obsessed with it to the point where they use it over and over it as a reason for their favorite player's losses. While tennis fans argue over prime this and peak that daily, you have Lebron out here at 40 years old dropping 42 points, while having 8 assists and 17 rebounds.

For me, sports' prime age is older across the board which many don't seem to take into account and the true greats just defy age and logic; we can go down the list of many athletes doing just that. Playing great in your 30s and still being in your prime is definitely possible, but a lot of tennis fans seem incapable of being able to judge actual levels even when you have a 16 year age gap.

 

[Rosstour]

Tsonga's 2008 Wimbledon performance and his 2014 victory in Canada both represent peak moments in his career, despite being six years apart.

That's probably the start and end of his peak though

 

[nolefam_2024]

Most sports fans are interested in this topic but tennis fans seem obsessed with it to the point where they use it over and over it as a reason for their favorite player's losses. While tennis fans argue over prime this and peak that daily, you have Lebron out here at 40 years old dropping 42 points, while having 8 assists and 17 rebounds.

For me, sports' prime age is older across the board which many don't seem to take into account and the true greats just defy age and logic; we can go down the list of many athletes doing just that. Playing great in your 30s and still being in your prime is definitely possible, but a lot of tennis fans seem incapable of being able to judge actual levels even when you have a 16 year age gap.

It's because of binary thinking that we are in this situation. If player has a few losses it doesn't make them totally over the hill today. In fact it might be sign of changing competition. Best would be to stick to tennis statistics and accept complexity.

 

[MeatTornado]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Peaks and Primes...

 

[nolefam_2024]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Peaks and Primes...

Yes and even then it's not a binding clause. That is most important thing. It's not a legal binding clause. You can say a player is out of their prime but you can not bind them to not perform at the peak level.

 

[JeMar]

Discussions about whether a player is "past their prime" or "out of their peak" often become contentious because they oversimplify complex performance dynamics. Here's a breakdown of how to approach these debates more constructively:

Understanding Peak vs. Prime​

1. Prime refers to a sustained period when an athlete consistently performs at their best level. For tennis players, this is often between ages 21-29, with the absolute peak typically around 24-28 years old, as shown by performance metrics like Grand Slam wins and ranking points.
2. Peak refers to moments or seasons of exceptional performance, which can occur both inside and outside the "prime" years. Players can achieve peak-level tennis even after their prime by adapting their playstyle, equipment, or fitness regimen.

Debunking Misconceptions​

• Binary Thinking: Arguments that dismiss a player's capabilities entirely because they are no longer in their prime ignore the nuances of athletic performance. For example, players like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic have demonstrated peak-level performances well into their 30s.
• Opponent Context: A player's performance should also be evaluated based on the quality of their opponents at the time. Facing an opponent playing at their best can make any victory more significant, regardless of whether the player is in their prime.

A Data-Driven Approach​

Using tools like Ultimate Tennis Statistics or Elo ratings can provide a more objective framework for these discussions:

• Assign difficulty rankings to opponents based on their form and historical performance.
• Analyze trends in winning percentages and rankings over time instead of relying on subjective judgments about "prime" years.

Conclusion​

Rather than making blanket statements about a player being "past it," consider the broader context: their ability to adapt, moments of peak performance, and the strength of their competition. This nuanced approach can help debunk overly simplistic arguments and foster more meaningful discussions.

I was going to have ChatGPT wrote an AI response to your ChatGPT post, but decided that would take longer.

Even the trolls are lazy these days.

 

[StrongRule]

Why am I not surprised this thread was made by a Djokovic fan?

 

[RS]

Most sports fans are interested in this topic but tennis fans seem obsessed with it to the point where they use it over and over it as a reason for their favorite player's losses. While tennis fans argue over prime this and peak that daily, you have Lebron out here at 40 years old dropping 42 points, while having 8 assists and 17 rebounds.

For me, sports' prime age is older across the board which many don't seem to take into account and the true greats just defy age and logic; we can go down the list of many athletes doing just that. Playing great in your 30s and still being in your prime is definitely possible, but a lot of tennis fans seem incapable of being able to judge actual levels even when you have a 16 year age gap.

I heard Lebron is declining a lot though

 

[nolefam_2024]

I heard Lebron is declining a lot though

Yes. He is finally in decline.

I am getting into NBA a bit nowadays as a former Colorado resident and jokic plays have been insane for last few years.

 

[JMR]

Understanding Peak vs. Prime

1. Prime refers to a sustained period when an athlete consistently performs at their best level. For tennis players, this is often between ages 21-29, with the absolute peak typically around 24-28 years old, as shown by performance metrics like Grand Slam wins and ranking points.
2. Peak refers to moments or seasons of exceptional performance, which can occur both inside and outside the "prime" years. Players can achieve peak-level tennis even after their prime by adapting their playstyle, equipment, or fitness regimen.

I am not sure of the source of the above statements (the passage appears to be a quotation, but no attribution is provided), but I disagree with the definition of "peak." In tennis terms, "peak" can never refer to a mere "moment." Here are my thoughts on the subject, written by me and taken from a previous post of mine:

"Peak" is not defined by age or capabilities, but simply by on-court results. Any other definition makes the term almost meaningless, because (a) we already have "prime" to describe the period when a player is young and fit enough to be playing his/her best tennis, and (b) we know that many players can have great years surprisingly erupt long after we thought their best production was behind them.

Traditionally, a tennis player's "peak" has referred to a contiguous period of years, usually no more than 4-5, when a player achieves his best results on average. A peak could be shorter if we're dealing with a player who is generally mediocre, then suddenly has a couple of excellent years, then slips right back into his standard mediocrity. Or a peak could be a bit longer than the customary four to five years if we're dealing with a player who is unusually productive over a long career. We sometimes see arguments of this kind applied to the Big 3. But even with them, a peak needs a defined starting point and hard cutoff, or else we wind up saying that they were at peak throughout their careers, which again renders the concept meaningless. Finally, with players from different generations, the norm is to have nonoverlapping peaks, or else peaks that coincide just a little. This is a natural result of age differences, not some kind of agenda-driven conspiracy (even recognizing that "agenda-driven conspiracy" is the primary critical conceptual framework adopted by many posters here).

The best definition of Federer's peak is the four-year period from 2004 through 2007. The results dictate this. However, I can understand why some might wish to include 2009 also (two slam titles and two slam finals), which would rope in 2008 as well due to the contiguity requirement. For Nadal, 2008 through 2013 would be analogous to the longer version of the Federer peak. For Djokovic, the peak would be 2011-2016. All three of these players had excellent years after their peaks, especially Djokovic. But defining a 13-year "peak" would be so out of step with tennis tradition that it would nullify the explanatory power of the idea. We just have to get used to the reality that a few players have been able to win lots of slams well outside their obvious peaks.

To elaborate on this explanation, a player's actual "peak" is not determined by an ad hoc assessment of playing level in a particular match or tournament. If someone says, "Roscoe Tanner defeated peak Borg at the USO" (an accurate statement, by the way), it does not mean that Borg's level of play in that match has been assessed and determined to have been at or near Borg's very best. It is simply a shorthand way of saying that Tanner beat Borg within Borg's peak years, of which 1979 certainly was one. (1979 Borg captured the Channel Slam and the YEC, won 93% of his matches, and ended the year as no. 1.)

 

[nolefam_2024]

I am not sure of the source of the above statements (the passage appears to be a quotation, but no attribution is provided), but I disagree with the definition of "peak." In tennis terms, "peak" can never refer to a mere "moment." Here are my thoughts on the subject, written by me and taken from a previous post of mine:



To elaborate on this explanation, a player's actual "peak" is not determined by an ad hoc assessment of playing level in a particular match or tournament. If someone says, "Roscoe Tanner defeated peak Borg at the USO" (an accurate statement, by the way), it does not mean that Borg's level of play in that match has been assessed and determined to have been at or near Borg's very best. It is simply a shorthand way of saying that Tanner beat Borg within Borg's peak years, of which 1979 certainly was one. (1979 Borg captured the Channel Slam and the YEC, won 93% of his matches, and ended the year as no. 1.)

Agree to disagree with this type of assessment.

 

[NoleFam]

I heard Lebron is declining a lot though

He is declining but he's 40, lol.

 

[NatF]

Bots using bots to write their posts now.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Honestly, only here in this forum do I notice that there is this modus operandi of belittling how much a player gets post prime.

In soccer, for example, Messi is definitively considered by many to be the GOAT after his Argentina's victory in the 2022 World Cup (plenty post prime), an event in which the flea was also judged the best player, and it doesn't matter that that same event was quite anomalous considering that it was played in the middle of the season rather than at the end.
2022 World Cup where it must be admitted that the level was quite poor, where finalist and reigning champion France had many absences.
But people don't care about all that.

Just as it doesn't matter to anyone that Jordan won 3 of his titles (1996-1998) post prime (1986-1993), having the most competitive supporting cast in the league at his disposal, and having to face competition where the league's leading players were still part of their old school generation.

The Utah Jazz that his Bulls defeated twice in the finals at the end of the 90s had the over thirty-year-olds Stockton and Malone as their reference players (plus Hornacek, another over thirty-year-old).
As a thirty-year-old, Reggie Miller was the leader of the Pacers who the Bulls defeated in 1998 in the ECF.
Or do we want to talk about the 1997 wcf final between Jazz and Rockets? literally only stars over 30 on the field (Stockton, Malone, Drexler, Barkley, Olajuwon).
Basically in the second half of the 90s where Jordan's Bulls still thrived it was an old league with no replacement.

Now let's make the comparison with LeBron and the league he had to face outside of his prime.
2015-2018 reference opponent the Warriors who had among their stars all players under 30 (Curry, Thompson, Durant, Green).
After 2018, many new generational players emerged such as Giannis, Jokic, Doncic, Embiid, Tatum.
A continuous turnover which in Jordan's league once the generation of Magic, Bird and Thomas ended, did not exist until the advent of the generation of Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Iverson, Pierce, etc., with Shaq, Kidd and a few others acting as the link.
Ergo, the generations of players born between the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s simply produced very little replacement.
Yet in the GOAT debate people only focus on the 6 titles won in as many finals by Jordan with his Bulls.

A career should be judged in its entirety, and the post prime should count just as much as the prime.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Honestly, only here in this forum do I notice that there is this modus operandi of belittling how much a player gets post prime.

In soccer, for example, Messi is definitively considered by many to be the GOAT after his Argentina's victory in the 2022 World Cup (plenty post prime), an event in which the flea was also judged the best player, and it doesn't matter that that same event was quite anomalous considering that it was played in the middle of the season rather than at the end.
2022 World Cup where it must be admitted that the level was quite poor, where finalist and reigning champion France had many absences.
But people don't care about all that.

Just as it doesn't matter to anyone that Jordan won 3 of his titles (1996-1998) post prime (1986-1993), having the most competitive supporting cast in the league at his disposal, and having to face competition where the league's leading players were still part of their old school generation.

The Utah Jazz that his Bulls defeated twice in the finals at the end of the 90s had the over thirty-year-olds Stockton and Malone as their reference players (plus Hornacek, another over thirty-year-old).
As a thirty-year-old, Reggie Miller was the leader of the Pacers who the Bulls defeated in 1998 in the ECF.
Or do we want to talk about the 1997 wcf final between Jazz and Rockets? literally only stars over 30 on the field (Stockton, Malone, Drexler, Barkley, Olajuwon).
Basically in the second half of the 90s where Jordan's Bulls still thrived it was an old league with no replacement.

Now let's make the comparison with LeBron and the league he had to face outside of his prime.
2015-2018 reference opponent the Warriors who had among their stars all players under 30 (Curry, Thompson, Durant, Green).
After 2018, many new generational players emerged such as Giannis, Jokic, Doncic, Embiid, Tatum.
A continuous turnover which in Jordan's league once the generation of Magic, Bird and Thomas ended, did not exist until the advent of the generation of Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Iverson, Pierce, etc., with Shaq, Kidd and a few others acting as the link.
Ergo, the generations of players born between the end of the 60s and the beginning of the 70s simply produced very little replacement.
Yet in the GOAT debate people only focus on the 6 titles won in as many finals by Jordan with his Bulls.

A career should be judged in its entirety, and the post prime should count just as much as the prime.

You are right.

The term as defined as @JMR is so binding. It is binary saying a player is peak only in certain contiguous years. I have made this argument before and will continue to do so even afterwards that even primes are far bigger than people give credit for.

I would say Nadal on clay was in his prime from 2005 to 2022. There is mountain of evidence for it. Eg here.

ATGs and 60% years , including streaks

Navratilova had 17 years in a row >60%! 1977-1993.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Similarly Agassi was in his prime as late as 2004.

 

[Kralingen]

LeBron GOAT. But let’s be clear he is very much declined compared to his best

 

[Winner Sinner]

You are right.

The term as defined as @JMR is so binding. It is binary saying a player is peak only in certain contiguous years. I have made this argument before and will continue to do so even afterwards that even primes are far bigger than people give credit for.

I would say Nadal on clay was in his prime from 2005 to 2022. There is mountain of evidence for it. Eg here.

ATGs and 60% years , including streaks

Navratilova had 17 years in a row >60%! 1977-1993.

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Similarly Agassi was in his prime as late as 2004.

With me you simply push through an open door.
The physical decline after the age of 30 can certainly be compensated by other aspects, such as a more varied game and in general more solid fundamentals, all the experience that helps you move better on a playing field, and by moving better I mean knowing how to sip your energy.

PS
I read that someone considers the current LeBron to be in decline.
Clearly this is the case, but compared to post-2018 where his physical decline was more accentuated, from 2019 to today he has declined less significantly season after season.
Don't be fooled by his slow start to the season, where he clearly suffered an off-season where he couldn't regenerate due to the Olympics.
Only in the last period has he come into form, the arrival of Doncic has motivated him like it hasn't happened for years.
All this to say that at 40 years old he can still have his say.
Athletically, we have never seen a 40-year-old like him in any sport, but not even close.

 

[nolefam_2024]

With me you simply push through an open door.
The physical decline after the age of 30 can certainly be compensated by other aspects, such as a more varied game and in general more solid fundamentals, all the experience that helps you move better on a playing field, and by moving better I mean knowing how to sip your energy.

PS
I read that someone considers the current LeBron to be in decline.
Clearly this is the case, but compared to post-2018 where his physical decline was more accentuated, from 2019 to today he has declined less significantly season after season.
Don't be fooled by his slow start to the season, where he clearly suffered an off-season where he couldn't regenerate due to the Olympics.
Only in the last period has he come into form, the arrival of Doncic has motivated him like it hasn't happened for years.
All this to say that at 40 years old he can still have his say.
Athletically, we have never seen a 40-year-old like him in any sport, but not even close.

You will when Djokovic turns 40 very likely.

 

[mtommer]

This nuanced approach can help debunk overly simplistic arguments and foster more meaningful discussions.

In your dreams. "Meaningful" itself is wholly subjective to begin with.

 

[nolefam_2024]

In your dreams. "Meaningful" itself is wholly subjective to begin with.

You are free to ignore but this is not just in my dreams but most of the knowledgeable members understanding as well.

 

[Winner Sinner]

You will when Djokovic turns 40 very likely.

I always remember when during the press conference after his triumph at the ATP Finals 2023 Djokovic was asked what this version of himself would have done against his version of himself from 10 years earlier, he replied that the 2015 season was unquestionably his most successful season, however he couldn't say whether that 2023 version would have beaten the 2015 version, but certainly according to him it would have been a tough nut to crack for his 2015 version of himself too.

 

[The Blond Blur]

At least you teenyboppers are getting closer to admitting that peaks and primes are a thing. Before it was just nonstop spamming of “tennis always evolves” and “age is just a number” or “10 moar years of practice and experience”.

It’s a small step, but at this point I’ll accept any form of progress.

 

[travlerajm]

I always remember when during the press conference after his triumph at the ATP Finals 2023 Djokovic was asked what this version of himself would have done against his version of himself from 10 years earlier, he replied that the 2015 season was unquestionably his most successful season, however he couldn't say whether that 2023 version would have beaten the 2015 version, but certainly according to him it would have been a tough nut to crack for his 2015 version of himself too.

Not quite as memorable as when Federer said he was a better player at age 34 then he was at 24 because he had 10 more years of experience.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Over the years here, I've weighed in enough on this general topic to be boring.

I'm not rigid about definitions for peak and prime, but acknowledge that age can play a role. I'm consistently surprised at how it seems to be emphasized to such a degree here. And yes, there are ways to prepare to deliver "peak" performances at slams, even without being in one's "prime". That said, this is not always the case.

To me, the binary stuff comes into play when various terms are "weaponized". Players are either greats or mugs. Eras and draws are put in the "weak" category. Other terms proliferate here as well.

 

[Winner Sinner]

I always give this extreme example.

If one day a player were to play a season in which he literally wins all the tournaments he participates in, therefore the 4 slams, the 9 masters 1000, the ATP Finals, etc., without losing a set in the entire season, all this even against formidable competition (for example 2012).
And that same player before and after that season no longer achieves any relevant success.

Can he enter the GOAT debate?

Absolutely not.
Consistency is the main metric when comparing players' careers.
Prime and pre or post prime are just futile discussions.

 

[Hitman]

OP all players have peak and primes. If they did not they would never retire.

 

[DSH]

Not quite as memorable as when Federer said he was a better player at age 34 then he was at 24 because he had 10 more years of experience.

One world: Bull-s-h-i-t!

 

[nolefam_2024]

Not quite as memorable as when Federer said he was a better player at age 34 then he was at 24 because he had 10 more years of experience.

Of course he was from backhand side.

 

[Incognito]

Federers backhand was best when he going toe to toe with Agassi, and producing winners from everywhere. The one where he had success against

 

[Hansen]

Not quite as memorable as when Federer said he was a better player at age 34 then he was at 24 because he had 10 more years of experience.

but we have to take into account the ego of the players. they need a certain amount of confidence to make it this far, often confidence against reason (we all know how unlikely it is to become a pro). so going away from that and judge yourself completely objectively is tough.

a quote that fits nice in this situation:
“The trouble with experience is that by the time you have it you are too old to take advantage of it.” jimmy connors

 

[nolefam_2024]

but we have to take into account the ego of the players. they need a certain amount of confidence to make it this far, often confidence against reason (we all know how unlikely it is to become a pro). so going away from that and judge yourself completely objectively is tough.

a quote that fits nice in this situation:
“The trouble with experience is that by the time you have it you are too old to take advantage of it.” jimmy connors

Yes for the old guys it was somewhat of a disadvantage. They had huge surgeries.

 

[InsuranceMan]

Yes. He is finally in decline.

I am getting into NBA a bit nowadays as a former Colorado resident and jokic plays have been insane for last few years.

Looking forward to seeing you in the NBA thread where you’ll pretend like you know basketball as well

 

[Hansen]

Absolutely not.
Consistency is the main metric when comparing players' careers.
Prime and pre or post prime are just futile discussions.

but wouldn‘t you say that the absolute highest level doesn‘t play an important factor also.
for example roy jones jr. fell of a cliff in his later years when he lost his speed, but in his prime and at his peak, he was as good as anyone.

 

[nolefam_2024]

but wouldn‘t you say that the absolute highest level doesn‘t play an important factor also.
for example roy jones jr. fell of a cliff in his later years when he lost his speed, but in his prime and at his peak, he was as good as anyone.

That's where we must use common sense. If stats show the player has not fallen off the cliff and people keep clamouring that they have, we have to put complete stop.

 

[Kralingen]

but wouldn‘t you say that the absolute highest level doesn‘t play an important factor also.
for example roy jones jr. fell of a cliff in his later years when he lost his speed, but in his prime and at his peak, he was as good as anyone.

@RS we have another Roy Jones BOAT believer

Soon you will join us as all true boxing fans do

 

[Incognito]

Federers backhand was best when he going toe to toe with Agassi, and producing winners from everywhere. The one where he had success against

…the one where he had success against Nadal was due to Nadal losing speed in his latter years.

 

[RS]

@RS we have another Roy Jones BOAT believer

Soon you will join us as all true boxing fans do

I don't know if he is.

I mean he might but boxing fans are insanely biased to fighters who fought before the 2000s.

 

[Hansen]

I mean he might but boxing fans are insanely biased to fighters who fought before the 2000s.

i‘m just a casual boxing fan, but roy jones jr was insane

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yall hate context lol

 

[mtommer]

I always give this extreme example.

If one day a player were to play a season in which he literally wins all the tournaments he participates in, therefore the 4 slams, the 9 masters 1000, the ATP Finals, etc., without losing a set in the entire season, all this even against formidable competition (for example 2012).
And that same player before and after that season no longer achieves any relevant success.

Can he enter the GOAT debate?

Absolutely not.
Consistency is the main metric when comparing players' careers.
Prime and pre or post prime are just futile discussions.

What about if they declare they will win everything prior to the start of the year and that they will play only the one year, and then do so as you note? And when asked why only the one year, they say tennis bores them because they're so great at it, but that they conceeded one year as proof.

 

[mtommer]

You are free to ignore but this is not just in my dreams but most of the knowledgeable members understanding as well.

Most of the knowledgable members understand what you wish for never happens here or ever will...hence, "in your dreams". Lol

 

[nolefam_2024]

Most of the knowledgable members understand what you wish for never happens here or ever will...hence, "in your dreams". Lol

Yes then you can ignore this post.

 

[Winner Sinner]

Most of the knowledgable members understand what you wish for never happens here or ever will...hence, "in your dreams". Lol

It's the same thing.
In the GOAT debate one must enter through the facts and not through the potential that only generates assumptions as an end in themselves.

You can also be the greatest talent in history, but if you don't prove it with facts in the long term, that remains just a label as an end in itself.

In soccer, Maradona probably reached the highest levels ever reached by a footballer in the history of football at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.
In general, his prime rightfully ranks among the best prime in the history of soccer, but his career does not because, unlike that of Messi, it lasted at very high levels for a much shorter time window.

Shaq in basketball, if he had taken care of his body during the off-season as in the 1999 off-season which coincided with the arrival of Phil Jackson.
How many seasons like 1999-2000 could he have seen from him?

With ifs and buts you don't make history, to make history you need facts.