Why is there a NEED for a GOAT

[Praetorian]

Serious question. Why do you all need to argue incessantly who the GOAT is? By the very definition alone, there can't be one until "All Time" has expired; and if you're reading this, it hasn't. So really, I'm curious to you die hard fans, what's the obsession of trying to prove why the person you support is GOAT, or the person you don't like isn't GOAT. Can't we just agree that the likes of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, are among the Greatest. I mean let's say Federer, or Nadal, or Sampras, or whoever really, has been systematically, and objectively considered the GOAT (for argument sake). What then? Will you pat your self on the back and boast how knowledgeable your are? Perhaps you have a wager? Or maybe a petulant school yard riff, "I told you so?" Or has the internet, in it's anonymity turned everyone in Type A personalities?

I mean really, almost every thread in the "General Pro Player Discussion" has turned into some kind of GOAT discussion, they should rename the section, the GOAT Discussion, and ban trolls who try to bait people in the GPPD, that's me. (yes I realize the hypocrisy, but there's no "GOAT Discussion" section as of writing)

 

[KineticChain]

if there is no GOAT.. then who will be GOAT? i don't understand your argument

 

[Praetorian]

There isn't any. Why do you feel there is a need to be one? Question was in there.

 

[JMR]

Serious question. Why do you all need to argue incessantly who the GOAT is? By the very definition alone, there can't be one until "All Time" has expired

Well, although there isn't a "need" for a GOAT, your definitional objection to the concept is simply wrong. "Of all time" is a common English idiom that does not include the future. It includes all the time that has passed up to the moment of the utterance.

 

[KineticChain]

basically.. if Federer is GOAT.. then how can there be no GOAT?

 

[Sentinel]

Serious question. Why do you all need to argue incessantly who the GOAT is?

(I suppose) We have been taught to compare things. And people. And to take our opinions very seriously.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Why is there a need for a God?

This could be a great metaphysical discussion thread if it doesn't get derailed by h2h!

 

[Bryan Swartz]

There is no need for GOAT, which is inherently an illogical and subjective construct devoid of meaning.

I could call Chris Guccione the GOAT and nobody could prove me wrong. It's all about how you define it and there's no objective way to do so. Some ways are less bad than others -- but that's hardly a compelling argument.

That's why I usually stay out of GOAT discussions.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

There is no need for GOAT, which is inherently an illogical and subjective construct devoid of meaning.



I could call Chris Guccione the GOAT and nobody could prove me wrong. It's all about how you define it and there's no objective way to do so. Some ways are less bad than others -- but that's hardly a compelling argument.



That's why I usually stay out of GOAT discussions.

Your statement is even more subjective. You can via the use of logic make a credible and compelling case for a GOAT. Much in the same way that astrophysicists can determine (or make a credible and compelling case) the existence of black holes.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

I don't think it is. There is no sensible comparison with black holes IMO. No GOAT criteria can fairly account for differences in era, technology, etc., and of course there is constant disagreement between people on what things constitute GOAT. There is nothing subjective about pointing out that there's no way to make an equal playing field to evaluate players of different times.

 

[helloworld]

Your statement is even more subjective. You can via the use of logic make a credible and compelling case for a GOAT. Much in the same way that astrophysicists can determine (or make a credible and compelling case) the existence of black holes.

You think Fed is GOAT? He's not. Only Fed-turd wants Federer to be GOAT despite the fact that he can't even handle a rival in his own era, let alone other all-time greats in history.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

I don't think it is. There is no sensible comparison with black holes IMO. No GOAT criteria can fairly account for differences in era, technology, etc., and of course there is constant disagreement between people on what things constitute GOAT. There is nothing subjective about pointing out that there's no way to make an equal playing field to evaluate players of different times.

Maybe if the greatest minds of our time put themselves to the task of solving the conundrum we would have a definitive answer?

The problem is that it is left to a bunch of fanatical amateurs thrashing around in a snake pit, to solve the riddle. Witness the timely arrival of 'helloworld'!

 

[BringBackSV]

Serious question. Why do you all need to argue incessantly who the GOAT is? By the very definition alone, there can't be one until "All Time" has expired; and if you're reading this, it hasn't. So really, I'm curious to you die hard fans, what's the obsession of trying to prove why the person you support is GOAT, or the person you don't like isn't GOAT. Can't we just agree that the likes of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, are among the Greatest. I mean let's say Federer, or Nadal, or Sampras, or whoever really, has been systematically, and objectively considered the GOAT (for argument sake). What then? Will you pat your self on the back and boast how knowledgeable your are? Perhaps you have a wager? Or maybe a petulant school yard riff, "I told you so?" Or has the internet, in it's anonymity turned everyone in Type A personalities?

I mean really, almost every thread in the "General Pro Player Discussion" has turned into some kind of GOAT discussion, they should rename the section, the GOAT Discussion, and ban trolls who try to bait people in the GPPD, that's me. (yes I realize the hypocrisy, but there's no "GOAT Discussion" section as of writing)

Completely agree, it's an insanely inane topic to argue about. You can't fairly compare eras and there are far too many factors to properly compare players from various points in time. Not to mention, why does it even matter anyway? I enjoy the sport but I don't get why some fans feel so personally vested in other players careers.

 

[BringBackSV]

Your statement is even more subjective. You can via the use of logic make a credible and compelling case for a GOAT. Much in the same way that astrophysicists can determine (or make a credible and compelling case) the existence of black holes.

Right, those two things are very comparable.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Maybe if the greatest minds of our time put themselves to the task of solving the conundrum we would have a definitive answer?

It's not about the intelligence of those talking about the subject. It's about the nature of the subject itself. I'm not here objecting to the bad GOAT arguments that are out there(that's another issue entirely), I'm objecting to the very idea of GOAT, fundamentally, as something to be seriously debated or entertained.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Completely agree, it's an insanely inane topic to argue about. You can't fairly compare eras and there are far too many factors to properly compare players from various points in time. Not to mention, why does it even matter anyway? I enjoy the sport but I don't get why some fans feel so personally vested in other players careers.

Two observations. If is so inane and does not matter why do you feel the need to discuss it?

Secondly, you play the reverse GOAT game in other threads. You were quite happy to speculate about how many GS's Federer might have won if so and so did such and such. Why the double standards?

 

[Deleted member 733170]

It's not about the intelligence of those talking about the subject. It's about the nature of the subject itself. I'm not here objecting to the bad GOAT arguments that are out there(that's another issue entirely), I'm objecting to the very idea of GOAT, fundamentally, as something to be seriously debated or entertained.

Ok, so to be clear, you are just repeating OP in the original question.

So, why do we feel the need for a God?

Although this could be construed as a facetious question, I think it gets to the bottom of it.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Right, those two things are very comparable.

As soon as you have universal opinion on say John McEnroe was greater than Tim Henman, you have the building blocks in place to answer the GOAT riddle.

 

[helloworld]

Ok, so to be clear, you are just repeating OP in the original question.

So, why do we feel the need for a God?

Although this could be construed as a facetious question, I think it gets to the bottom of it.

So you are comparing GOAT debate to a GOD debate? So you are comparing Federer to god? I've seen many crazy fed fans on this board, but this one takes the cake, lol. I might just make this a signature of my own. :lol:

 

[SpinToWin]

There is no such thing as a GOAT. That is all I will contribute to this discussion as the rest (obviously) will get out of hand.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

So you are comparing GOAT debate to a GOD debate? So you are comparing Federer to god? I've seen many crazy fed fans on this board, but this one takes the cake, lol. I might just make this a signature of my own. :lol:

To be clear I am not comparing Federer to God and its a cheap shot to suggest so.

I am saying that humans are wired to believe in absolutes. Maybe this is too subtle for some one at your level of evolutionary consciousness to comprehend.

 

[jg153040]

Serious question. Why do you all need to argue incessantly who the GOAT is? By the very definition alone, there can't be one until "All Time" has expired; and if you're reading this, it hasn't. So really, I'm curious to you die hard fans, what's the obsession of trying to prove why the person you support is GOAT, or the person you don't like isn't GOAT. Can't we just agree that the likes of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, are among the Greatest. I mean let's say Federer, or Nadal, or Sampras, or whoever really, has been systematically, and objectively considered the GOAT (for argument sake). What then? Will you pat your self on the back and boast how knowledgeable your are? Perhaps you have a wager? Or maybe a petulant school yard riff, "I told you so?" Or has the internet, in it's anonymity turned everyone in Type A personalities?

I mean really, almost every thread in the "General Pro Player Discussion" has turned into some kind of GOAT discussion, they should rename the section, the GOAT Discussion, and ban trolls who try to bait people in the GPPD, that's me. (yes I realize the hypocrisy, but there's no "GOAT Discussion" section as of writing)

I can ask you similar question. Why is there a need for some people to stop or ban goat discussions? A lot of people here like it and have fun. So, if you don't like it you don't need to read goat posts or respond to them. Or even you don't need to be in this forum if you don't like discussions.

Nobody is forcing anyone here, so I don't see what the problem is. Guess what I do if I don't like some discussions. I don't read or respond in those threads. Simple and this is what freedom is all about. And this is how we all can be happy.

I don't see why there is a need to try stop something, when nobody is forcing it upon you, people just have fun with it.

You would have a valid point if there was a rule that you were required to participate in goat discussions.

Live and let live.

 

[jg153040]

So you are comparing GOAT debate to a GOD debate? So you are comparing Federer to god? I've seen many crazy fed fans on this board, but this one takes the cake, lol. I might just make this a signature of my own. :lol:

Ok, I'm an atheist, so I can't compare Federer to god, since I don't believe god even exists .

But what poster was trying to say is that a lot of people are religious. And they do give those pros some god-like properties. Like, they can't lose when peak or healthy. Like they can't be arrogant or make mistakes.

And those debates are similar to religious debates, since a lot of times people don't use evidence to back up their goat claims, they only use emotions and beliefs.

He wanted to make a point that we are wired to be religious. But that doesn't prove anything, it just proves we are wired to believe .

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Ok, so to be clear, you are just repeating OP in the original question.

Not so much repeating in my opinion as agreeing with, but yes.

am saying that humans are wired to believe in absolutes.

I think this is a far better way to state your opinion than the question you previously asked. To that question I would answer because we were created that way, but I'm not going to have a long theological discussion here -- I think that would be very disrespectful to the OP/community.

Whether we are wired to believe in absolutes doesn't have any bearing on GOAT in my opinion. I'm talking about what is true, not about how people are biased. All that's needed is a compelling argument for how one can compare players of different eras fairly and objectively. If such a case could be established, I would be proven wrong.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Ok, I'm an atheist, so I can't compare Federer to god, since I don't believe god even exists .

But what poster was trying to say is that a lot of people are religious. And they do give those pros some god-like properties. Like, they can't lose when peak or healthy. Like they can't be arrogant or make mistakes.

And those debates are similar to religious debates, since a lot of times people don't use evidence to back up their goat claims, they only use emotions and beliefs.

He wanted to make a point that we are wired to be religious. But that doesn't prove anything, it just proves we are wired to believe .

Yikes, please don't bring religion into this, it was a reference to absolutism if anything.

 

[furryballs]

there is no need....its another marketing tool the ATP latched onto thats all it is

 

[D.Nalby12]

You think Fed is GOAT? He's not. Only Fed-turd wants Federer to be GOAT despite the fact that he can't even handle a rival in his own era, let alone other all-time greats in history.

His rival himself all time great.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Not so much repeating in my opinion as agreeing with, but yes.







I think this is a far better way to state your opinion than the question you previously asked. To that question I would answer because we were created that way, but I'm not going to have a long theological discussion here -- I think that would be very disrespectful to the OP/community.



Whether we are wired to believe in absolutes doesn't have any bearing on GOAT in my opinion. I'm talking about what is true, not about how people are biased. All that's needed is a compelling argument for how one can compare players of different eras fairly and objectively. If such a case could be established, I would be proven wrong.

Ok maybe it was slightly mischievous of me to pose the question as I did. Though I wished to provoke thought rather than present the answer on a silver platter.

In answer to your question how you can compare across the eras, well as other posters have inferred before, the moment you have agreement on say x was better than y, you have the building blocks to solve the GOAT riddle via the process of ratiocination.

 

[Bryan Swartz]

Ok, fair enough. Where does that agreement come from though? What is it based on? GOAT debates don't arise from those moments where we agree x was better than y -- you don't see a lot of people going around claiming Karlovic as GOAT. Furthermore, everybody agreeing that the moon is made of green cheese wouldn't make it so. So there's has to be some basis to resolve disagreements, and to provide a basis for what we think even if there is agreement.

All of which brings us back to where you get that from in comparing players of different eras. My stance remains that it simply isn't possible. Appreciate them for what they do, and leave it there.

 

[jg153040]

Not so much repeating in my opinion as agreeing with, but yes.



I think this is a far better way to state your opinion than the question you previously asked. To that question I would answer because we were created that way, but I'm not going to have a long theological discussion here -- I think that would be very disrespectful to the OP/community.

Whether we are wired to believe in absolutes doesn't have any bearing on GOAT in my opinion. I'm talking about what is true, not about how people are biased. All that's needed is a compelling argument for how one can compare players of different eras fairly and objectively. If such a case could be established, I would be proven wrong.

This is semantics. Of course goat can be proven if we agree on the definition.

I mean, I can prove I'm not human and that humans don't exist if I change the definition of human.

That is what you are doing when saying goat doesn't exist. Changing the definition.

So, mostly people are arguing semantics, without even realizing. But most people agree on the definition of goat and can prove it with math.

So, we can have some objective definitions of goat. Like we have what a human is. Sure, you can come here saying being human is relative, it depends how we define a human or whether we agree on the definition. You can say, is reality even real? But, that doesn't lead to anything, so no point in having this, we will just not talk about it.

But the rest of us will use some objective stuff, some subjective, common sense and logic and try to determine who the best is. Sure, it is not perfect, but it is still good enough. Even in science there is nothing 100%.

But, just because things aren't perfect, it doesn't mean they don't work or we can't use them. Also we learn and improve.

But even if things are subjective, there are never 100% subjective. We still will find some absolutes, where we all agree. For example, I haven't seen anyone claiming Roddick is the goat for example.

Ok, my point is, while determining goat is not perfect, that doesn't mean we should stop or dismiss the notion. Sure, there is a lot of problems, but should we just stop and say there is no goat? In science we don't know exactly how the Universe came into existence. But, that doesn't mean we don't know anything or that we aren't close. We know a lot and are pretty close. A lot closer than hundred years ago.

So, I don't see why we need to just say it's impossible to know about the Universe or goat.

 

[jg153040]

Ok, fair enough. Where does that agreement come from though? What is it based on? GOAT debates don't arise from those moments where we agree x was better than y -- you don't see a lot of people going around claiming Karlovic as GOAT. Furthermore, everybody agreeing that the moon is made of green cheese wouldn't make it so. So there's has to be some basis to resolve disagreements, and to provide a basis for what we think even if there is agreement.

All of which brings us back to where you get that from in comparing players of different eras. My stance remains that it simply isn't possible. Appreciate them for what they do, and leave it there.

Here is my main disagreement. Why leave it there? Just because it's flawed, why stop looking? Just because we don't know something, we shouldn't just give up.

Also do you agree we can compare guys in one single tournament who is the best? Because every second is a different era, so even within the same tournament conditions aren't the same for everyone. One day Murray is sick. One day he plays at night. Conditions are never the same even withing the same week and yet we can still determine who is the best.

So, why not extending this to eras? I mean if we all agree that winner of a major is the best why is it illogical for you to say we can't extend two weeks to two decades?

We can compare how much money was worth in previous eras, because we can calculate inflation. So, we can use this for eras too. For example we do take into an account Borg playing in 3 slam era.

The problem with goat is only when two guys have similar stats and when they are close.

But, Federer is so above others in stats, that even with margins of errors, we can still say with a lot of confidence that he is the best.

You would have a point if Federer only had 15 majors and no career and no WTF wins. Then it would be too close to call. But that is not the case.

He is miles ahead in statistics, so it's easy to decide. And Federer not only leads in objective stats, he also is right there on top in subjective stats, like style, making it look easy, how he is a role model and a genius, has all the shots and makes it look easy.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Ok, fair enough. Where does that agreement come from though? What is it based on? GOAT debates don't arise from those moments where we agree x was better than y -- you don't see a lot of people going around claiming Karlovic as GOAT. Furthermore, everybody agreeing that the moon is made of green cheese wouldn't make it so. So there's has to be some basis to resolve disagreements, and to provide a basis for what we think even if there is agreement.



All of which brings us back to where you get that from in comparing players of different eras. My stance remains that it simply isn't possible. Appreciate them for what they do, and leave it there.

I'm sorry Brian if everyone believed that the moon was made of green cheese it would as far our minds are concerned be made of blue cheese. This is the same example as the black hole one.

Can you answer this question: Who is greater Bjorg or Rusedski? If you answered Bjorg, I will answer why? Based on the answer you give we can then deduct the GOAT.

If you don't accept this methodology we can then go back in to the dark ages and state that Olivier Rochus is greater than Pete Sampras.

 

[jg153040]

Ok maybe it was slightly mischievous of me to pose the question as I did. Though I wished to provoke thought rather than present the answer on a silver platter.

In answer to your question how you can compare across the eras, well as other posters have inferred before, the moment you have agreement on say x was better than y, you have the building blocks to solve the GOAT riddle via the process of ratiocination.

Yeah, this. As long as people can agree who is the best in the world for a second for example, we can compare across eras. Because even one second is an era, one minute, hour, 2 weeks, 1 year, 10 years, 50 years.

And conditions are always different every second. So, if people can agree who the best in one tournament is, then they lost and they can't say you can't compare across eras, since even two weeks is an era.

So, people who claim that we can't compare eras shouldn't then try to argue who the best even today is. Since winning AO 13 vs AO 14 is a different era and conditions are very different.

So, if they can compare AO 13 vs AO 14, why can't they compare AO 14 vs AO 1994?

So either they concede that we can compare or they just say it's impossible to determine who the best is even today, since every second conditions are different. They can't have it both ways, saying we can determine who the best in one year is, then we can't say who the best in 50 years is.

 

[furryballs]

Nishikori,Cilic and other younger players coming through will not be advantaged by bouncy,slow courts.nadal has had his day and the market gurus at the ATP know this.he should be thankfull for ALL the advantages they gave him to keep up with federer AND djokovic.

 

[ThomasGB]

Because we need to label someone the best in the sport, someone for the next generation to admire as the very best, and the top of his game. That's why we need a GOAT, but who is the GOAT? Federer or Nadal, or maybe shared GOAT status?

No clue. :???:

 

[MTF07]

You think Fed is GOAT? He's not. Only Fed-turd wants Federer to be GOAT despite the fact that he can't even handle a rival in his own era, let alone other all-time greats in history.

Federer won 72% of his matches against Agassi and 100% of his matches against Sampras.

 

[bee7]

The GOAT should be changed to The GONE (The Greatest of Never Ending discussion)..... unless if the GOAT actually stands for the Greatest Of ArseTwiddler then we have a winner with no doubt whatsoever.

 

[TheMusicLover]

there is no need....its another marketing tool the ATP latched onto thats all it is

Yep. The older tennis fans may remember that there never was any talk of a 'GOAT' until Sampras racked up his #14, and many pundits wrongfully believed that that record would stand for the ages.
Before the Sampy era, we only talked about 'great players' with no need to ferociously herald one of them as the GOAT.

You cannot compare different players from different era's. It shouldn't be so hard to understand that.

 

[PMChambers]

Yep. The older tennis fans may remember that there never was any talk of a 'GOAT' until Sampras racked up his #14

Mainly as Laver was considered the best ever for many decades. Even though this could be argued in favor of Roewall or Gonzales. The main difference is the lack of data to argue over. The majority of tournaments weren't televised and due to the pro vs amateur issues it made comparison harder. Sampras was the first player in 30 years to challenge Lavers GS record which lite up the "my era's better than yours" debate.

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Yep. The older tennis fans may remember that there never was any talk of a 'GOAT' until Sampras racked up his #14, and many pundits wrongfully believed that that record would stand for the ages.

Before the Sampy era, we only talked about 'great players' with no need to ferociously herald one of them as the GOAT.



You cannot compare different players from different era's. It shouldn't be so hard to understand that.

In the old days we didn't have kite surfing or iPads nor a solution to Fermat's last theorem. Though I agree that Sampras' remarkable achievements merited descriptive praise which hadn't been used thus far. And then, within a few years , a young man from Switzerland put Sampras' achievements into the shade. I think GOAT is a fitting accolade for such achievement as on 80-90% of every objective measure Federer is in a league of his own. This shouldn't be too hard to understand either.

 

[tennisaddict]

Dont we have greatest president, greatest musician, greatest athlete, etc.,

If one does not subscribe to the theory of greatest, it should be easy to skip those threads.

But why go to such lengths and try to make some statements about how such thing does not exist ?

Half the folks who say no GOAT in these threads will argue that their favorite is greatest outside of this thread, when stats dont back it.

 

[Sysyphus]

There is no need for GOAT, which is inherently an illogical and subjective construct devoid of meaning.

I could call Chris Guccione the GOAT and nobody could prove me wrong. It's all about how you define it and there's no objective way to do so. Some ways are less bad than others -- but that's hardly a compelling argument.

That's why I usually stay out of GOAT discussions.

This is exactly right.

This is semantics. Of course goat can be proven if we agree on the definition.

Yes, and semantics is about meaning, and meaning is not exactly a trivial matter. The point is that the definitions, or premises for a GOAT-argument aren't given, objective, or something that is "out there" for us to just find. They are subjective constructs, and completely arbitrary.

That is what you are doing when saying goat doesn't exist. Changing the definition.

He's not changing any definition, just acknowledging that such a definition isn't given, it is arbitrary.

So, mostly people are arguing semantics, without even realizing. But most people agree on the definition of goat and can prove it with math.

Again, semantics isn't just some trivial matter in such a discussion. And, no, almost no one agrees completely on the definition of GOAT. Everyone weigh different feats, stats and accomplishments a little differently. Not to mention that these things change continuously between eras. So what does this show us? That definitions of GOAT-hood are subjective and arbitrary!

And even if the majority people were to mostly agree about the definition, that would not prove your point at all. This is a basic logical fallcy.

So, we can have some objective definitions of goat. Like we have what a human is. Sure, you can come here saying being human is relative, it depends how we define a human or whether we agree on the definition. You can say, is reality even real? But, that doesn't lead to anything, so no point in having this, we will just not talk about it.

But there is no end all objective definition of animal species. When would you say that people started being human? Can one draw a line and say "this is the very first human"? No, it is just categories that makes thinking a lot easier for us, but the practicalness of such categories does not imply that there is some absolute truth or objectivity to them.
And in any case, your comparison is still not really meaningful, since fields like biology deal with describing physical properties, whereas "greatness" is just an abstract value judgement.

But even if things are subjective, there are never 100% subjective. We still will find some absolutes, where we all agree. For example, I haven't seen anyone claiming Roddick is the goat for example.

Again, the agreement of something does not imply some objective truth. We could collectively agree that there are only 10000 people in the world, but that wouldn't make it true.

So, I don't see why we need to just say it's impossible to know about the Universe or goat.

Again, you can't really compare "goat-discussions" with natural sciences. There are plenty of things in the universe that can be described, but the goat-debate just rests on arbitrary and subjective premises. It is therefore completely meaningless.

 

[Sysyphus]

Yep. The older tennis fans may remember that there never was any talk of a 'GOAT' until Sampras racked up his #14, and many pundits wrongfully believed that that record would stand for the ages.
Before the Sampy era, we only talked about 'great players' with no need to ferociously herald one of them as the GOAT.

You cannot compare different players from different era's. It shouldn't be so hard to understand that.

Agree with all points, and especially the bolded. Should be obvious, but it seems it isn't for most..

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

I can ask you similar question. Why is there a need for some people to stop or ban goat discussions? A lot of people here like it and have fun. So, if you don't like it you don't need to read goat posts or respond to them. Or even you don't need to be in this forum if you don't like discussions.

Nobody is forcing anyone here, so I don't see what the problem is. Guess what I do if I don't like some discussions. I don't read or respond in those threads. Simple and this is what freedom is all about. And this is how we all can be happy.

I don't see why there is a need to try stop something, when nobody is forcing it upon you, people just have fun with it.

You would have a valid point if there was a rule that you were required to participate in goat discussions.

Live and let live.

^^^
Got to admit, this is a solid, reasonable post …. (even if most of these 'GOAT' thread are either exercises in "put down" or insecure fanboy circle jerks)

Maybe this is too subtle for some one at your level of evolutionary consciousness to comprehend.

Oooooh, check out the big brain on Brad!

Get over yourself.

 

[above bored]

Serious question. Why do you all need to argue incessantly who the GOAT is? By the very definition alone, there can't be one until "All Time" has expired; and if you're reading this, it hasn't. So really, I'm curious to you die hard fans, what's the obsession of trying to prove why the person you support is GOAT, or the person you don't like isn't GOAT. Can't we just agree that the likes of Federer, Sampras, Nadal, are among the Greatest. I mean let's say Federer, or Nadal, or Sampras, or whoever really, has been systematically, and objectively considered the GOAT (for argument sake). What then? Will you pat your self on the back and boast how knowledgeable your are? Perhaps you have a wager? Or maybe a petulant school yard riff, "I told you so?" Or has the internet, in it's anonymity turned everyone in Type A personalities?

I mean really, almost every thread in the "General Pro Player Discussion" has turned into some kind of GOAT discussion, they should rename the section, the GOAT Discussion, and ban trolls who try to bait people in the GPPD, that's me. (yes I realize the hypocrisy, but there's no "GOAT Discussion" section as of writing)

You could argue why do we really need to discuss other people's achievements at all.

I think it's human nature to compare, after which our intellectual curiosity often wants to know who amongst us is/was the best exponent of a discpline. It happens in all measurable disciplines, especially sport but not restricted to sport. It would be very unusual for that question not to arise. We want to know not only who the best boxer was within a weight class, but across weight classes (pound for pound). We want to know who the best footballer, basketball player, golfer, sprinter is etc. Further, we want to know who the richest person is, the tallest, fastest, youngest to achieve a stated goal, most successful etc. It's endless. The world is always curious to know what the best looks like. In some ways it tells us a little more about ourselves as humans, as in this is what is possible or this is close to the limit.

 

[ollinger]

We create a GOAT for reasons similar to why we created god(s) --- to give order and hopefully some predictability to our lives on this desolate planet.

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

But remember if there is a Goat the Goat is not always free, sometimes he has a Goat herder

 

[octobrina10]

But remember if there is a Goat the Goat is not always free, sometimes he has a Goat herder

Yep!

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Is this like the "giraffes don't exist" thing?

I think both exist and here's a picture that proves it:

 

[rjms]

if there is no goat then for whom will fanboys do baah baaah !