GOAT of GOAT(s)

[Brian63]

Of all athletes in all sports, who would you rank as the greatest individual athlete (not a whole team)?

What would you consider to be the greatest achievements in all of sports? That can include the greatest career achievements at a particular tournament, the greatest winning streak, the greatest upset, the greatest single match victory, etc.


Partly because of my tennis bias but mostly due to it being undeniable fact, I would place Rafael Nadal to be the greatest athlete ever. He is tied for most Grand Slam titles (20) with Roger Federer. The 2 of them, plus Novak Djokovic, are considered to be the 3 greatest tennis players of all time and happen to be playing professionally at the same time. Imagine if one of them was not, how many more Grand Slams either of the remaining 2 would have acquired. Or if 2/3 were not, then even more would likely have been concentrated to just the remaining player, who would without question be considered the GOAT.

At the French Open (played on clay) in particular, Nadal is virtually invincible and has a career record of 100-2. He has won the title 13 times and not only beats his opponents but does so regularly with tremendous ease.

What individual athlete can compare to what Nadal has performed?

Who else might be the GOAT of GOATs?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is way too subjective. So it is impossible to actually judge GOAT without a certain guide for what we are looking at. Individual dominance in a sport, best athleticism, great achievements? Overall, I think the greatest athlete is the Decathlete for athleticism. So the best decathlete ever is the best athlete ever. I'll throw a bone to ironman triathletes, because Jebus! 8 hours?! Are you kidding me?

But then we have cross-sports, the Jim Thorpes, Jim Browns, Bo Jacksons (despite a shortened career).

Sure, we have Nadal / Federer that are phenoms in their individual sport and their enduring careers are mind boggling... much like Tom Brady or Serena Williams. They've been so good for so long!

If you want dominance, Usain Bolt is insane above the rest, even compared to a Nadal. Nadal's achievements are incredible, but repeatable. Bolt's WR in the 100 is something because he won the gold in a race that 2nd place broke the world record too. Bolt's record might possibly never be broken. That time requires speed and stride and there aren't many people that tall and that fast. Bolt did the triple (100 m, 200 m, 4x100 m relay) in 3 Olympics (though one relay was stripped) and 3 World Championships. It would have been 4 if not for a false start.

Carl Lewis matches Bolt with 3 golds, but Bolt has 4 200 meter golds in Worlds, only two others come close, with 2. Carl Lewis probably does belong in the conversation, trading the 200 meter for the long jump. His one issue is not holding an individual world record. Bolt has 2 of them, 1 of which is likely untouchable until a 7-ft tall sprinter shows up. Don't hold your breath.

 

[rousseau]

Statistically I'd say Lionel Messi, Wayne Gretzky, Tiger Woods all reached far beyond anyone in the history of their sport. Federer and Jordan maybe a step down from them. I'm less sure about how to assess Brady, it seems like a lot of his success can also be attributed to Bill Belichick and the Patriots.

I think if you want to look at Olympic athletes they need a separate category. Usain Bolt is exceptional in what he does, but is he more skilled than Messi? I'd argue no.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Statistically I'd say Lionel Messi, Wayne Gretzky, Tiger Woods all reached far beyond anyone in the history of their sport.

Gretzky is awesome, but he played in a time in the NHL when goaltenders weren't allowed to stop the puck... or at least that is what the statistics of lots of players imply. His stats are outrageously good, and on a level of their own even in the early/mid 80s where even I could have scored 10 goals. When I think best players in hockey, Bobby Orr comes straight to mind. He achieved what he achieved on bad legs almost from his rookie season. He redefined the role of a defenseman on offense (leading the league in points twice!)... while still winning the Norris Trophy, like every freaking year he played in his injury plagued career and leading in Plus/Minus in 6 years (still a record)! So I have quickly decided that Bobby Orr needs to be consider for GOATOAT.

Tiger Woods was definitely a league of his own for several years. But Woods doesn't hold the record for most Majors. That is a significant flaw in his GOAT argument. Nicklaus has more majors. So while Woods is among the greatest golfers, he is arguably not even the best golfer, except in that stupidly awesome stretch where he won four majors in a row (though not in the same year).

Federer and Jordan maybe a step down from them.

You misspelled Nadel. Jordan definitely can be added to the subject. His success is noted, with 6 out of 6 in NBA Finals.

I'm less sure about how to assess Brady, it seems like a lot of his success can also be attributed to Bill Belichick and the Patriots.

The win with Tampa really just stops the questions, he is the GOAT of QBs in the NFL.

I think if you want to look at Olympic athletes they need a separate category. Usain Bolt is exceptional in what he does, but is he more skilled than Messi? I'd argue no.

Usain Bolt is not more skilled than Messi. Messi also has 0 World Cup championships. Which is why you need some sort of measuring stick to use. Athleticism, dominance, achievements?

 

[rousseau]

Gretzky is awesome, but he played in a time in the NHL when goaltenders weren't allowed to stop the puck... or at least that is what the statistics of lots of players imply. His stats are outrageously good, and on a level of their own even in the early/mid 80s where even I could have scored 10 goals. When I think best players in hockey, Bobby Orr comes straight to mind. He achieved what he achieved on bad legs almost from his rookie season. He redefined the role of a defenseman on offense (leading the league in points twice!)... while still winning the Norris Trophy, like every freaking year he played in his injury plagued career and leading in Plus/Minus in 6 years (still a record)! So I have quickly decided that Bobby Orr needs to be consider for GOATOAT.

Orr is up there too. That Gretzky played in a high-scoring era is clear, but his statistics are still phenomenal when accounting for it. Even in his minor career.

Tiger Woods was definitely a league of his own for several years. But Woods doesn't hold the record for most Majors. That is a significant flaw in his GOAT argument. Nicklaus has more majors. So while Woods is among the greatest golfers, he is arguably not even the best golfer, except in that stupidly awesome stretch where he won four majors in a row (though not in the same year).

Na, it's really not. Nicklaus and Woods played in different eras, it's like comparing the home runs of Babe Ruth and Miguel Cabrera, or the cups of the Original Six Canadiens vs 10s Penguins. Woods was playing against a much stronger field, and his tournament by tournament statistics are light years beyond anyone else.

This is why if you're talking great athletes you have to actually analyze game by game statistics, how the athlete performed, day after day, throughout their career. And on this metric Woods is a far better golfer than Nicklaus. And the only reason he didn't win more majors is because he hurt his back.

In golf there is basically a pre and post Woods era, he completely changed the game globally.

 

[Brian63]

The problem with granting a QB a title of "greatest quarterback ever" based on the number of wins they picked up is that they have zero role to play in half of the team's overall performance (i.e., they do not play defense). In many other sports, the same athlete is forced to play both clearly defined and regular offensive and defensive roles, and so their impact is not so focused. Brady may excel at throwing a ball but would suck as a cornerback, for instance. In tennis, the same player takes on the role of server and receiver. In basketball, the same players have to play both offense and defense. When they have to play multiple roles, I think it is in a separate category and those athletes are under greater physical and mental demand to play an all around great game.

Also, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers did not have a great regular season either, but still good and especially good enough to get into the playoffs. From there, it is not as if each round consists of a best-of-7 games to eliminate your opponent. Instead, it all comes to a single game, and that allows for more luck to determine the winners and losers. The importance of talent gets diminished in value to some degree.

 

[rousseau]

Gretzky is awesome, but he played in a time in the NHL when goaltenders weren't allowed to stop the puck... or at least that is what the statistics of lots of players imply. His stats are outrageously good, and on a level of their own even in the early/mid 80s where even I could have scored 10 goals. When I think best players in hockey, Bobby Orr comes straight to mind. He achieved what he achieved on bad legs almost from his rookie season. He redefined the role of a defenseman on offense (leading the league in points twice!)... while still winning the Norris Trophy, like every freaking year he played in his injury plagued career and leading in Plus/Minus in 6 years (still a record)! So I have quickly decided that Bobby Orr needs to be consider for GOATOAT.

Orr is up there too. That Gretzky played in a high-scoring era is clear, but his statistics are still phenomenal when accounting for it. Even in his minor career.

Tiger Woods was definitely a league of his own for several years. But Woods doesn't hold the record for most Majors. That is a significant flaw in his GOAT argument. Nicklaus has more majors. So while Woods is among the greatest golfers, he is arguably not even the best golfer, except in that stupidly awesome stretch where he won four majors in a row (though not in the same year).

Na, it's really not. Nicklaus and Woods played in different eras, it's like comparing the home runs of Babe Ruth and Miguel Cabrera, or the cups of the Original Six Canadiens vs 10s Penguins. Woods was playing against a much stronger field, and his tournament by tournament statistics are light years beyond anyone else.

This is why if you're talking great athletes you have to actually analyze game by game statistics, how the athlete performed, day after day, throughout their career. And on this metric Woods is a far better golfer than Nicklaus. And the only reason he didn't win more majors is because he hurt his back.

In golf there is basically a pre and post Woods era, he completely changed the game globally.

I think you could probably argue that Gretzky has some comparables, but statistically Woods is a definite outlier, imo.

 

[rousseau]

The problem with granting a QB a title of "greatest quarterback ever" based on the number of wins they picked up is that they have zero role to play in half of the team's overall performance (i.e., they do not play defense).

Not so. An extraordinary player will attract other good players to the team, so Brady played a big part in the quality around him, albeit indirectly. This is partly why the Pittsburgh Penguins winning three cups was so impressive, Crosby single-handedly changed the entire organization via his leadership skills.

So titles do play a part in the measure of a great player, but when you start doing cross-era comparisons it gets a little hairier.

 

[Brian63]

The comment was referring to their role on the field itself in a very direct manner. In American football for example, the players on the offense are different from the ones on defense. They are especially suited and trained for that role almost entirely. In contrast---such as in hockey, basketball, baseball, tennis, soccer---the same players have to prepare for both sides on the field.

In tennis especially (singles, not doubles), a player cannot rely on their teammates to be great at their position at all, since they have no teammates. It is entirely a one-on-one competition, and so it is fairly easier to gauge the quality of a tennis player's talent than it is for athletes in other sports.

 

[rousseau]

You misspelled Nadel.

What is your argument for Nadal over Federer? Looks like Nadal wins head-to-head, but a lot of that is his ability on clay. I don't actually know much about tennis, but I always assumed Federer had an edge statistically.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You misspelled Nadel.

What is your argument for Nadal over Federer? Looks like Nadal wins head-to-head, but a lot of that is his ability on clay. I don't actually know much about tennis, but I always assumed Federer had an edge statistically.

I did too, but when I looked at the stats Nada indeed is much better head to head, any court. Federer is awesome though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The problem with granting a QB a title of "greatest quarterback ever" based on the number of wins they picked up is that they have zero role to play in half of the team's overall performance (i.e., they do not play defense). In many other sports, the same athlete is forced to play both clearly defined and regular offensive and defensive roles, and so their impact is not so focused. Brady may excel at throwing a ball but would suck as a cornerback, for instance. In tennis, the same player takes on the role of server and receiver. In basketball, the same players have to play both offense and defense. When they have to play multiple roles, I think it is in a separate category and those athletes are under greater physical and mental demand to play an all around great game.

Also, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers did not have a great regular season either, but still good and especially good enough to get into the playoffs. From there, it is not as if each round consists of a best-of-7 games to eliminate your opponent. Instead, it all comes to a single game, and that allows for more luck to determine the winners and losers. The importance of talent gets diminished in value to some degree.

Certainly. Playoff football is about coaching, that’s it. The players need to perform, but otherwise it is the right gameplay. The Patriots were not a better team than the Rams in 2002. The Giants weren’t better than the Pats in 2008, but the game plans were.

But while Brady isn’t the GOATOAT, he is the best QB ever.

 

[rousseau]

You misspelled Nadel.

What is your argument for Nadal over Federer? Looks like Nadal wins head-to-head, but a lot of that is his ability on clay. I don't actually know much about tennis, but I always assumed Federer had an edge statistically.

I did too, but when I looked at the stats Nada indeed is much better head to head, any court. Federer is awesome though.

This wiki makes for good reading: Federer-Nadal Rivalry

It looks like it's hard to give a strong edge to either. They're both different players, with different strengths. But the commentary at the bottom does seem to give an edge to Federer.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Greatest athlete? Jim Brown

Greatest achievement? Secretariat's Triple Crown (sorry, humans). Broke the record in all three races. Won the Belmont Stakes by 31 lengths (almost 300 feet), when "experts" thought he wouldn't do as well at the longer distance. Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfCMtaNiMDM

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Secretariat did have that scandal, bragging about having had sex with 1000 fillies.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Who else might be the GOAT of GOATs?

This fellow

 

[ronburgundy]

Tiger Woods was definitely a league of his own for several years. But Woods doesn't hold the record for most Majors. That is a significant flaw in his GOAT argument. Nicklaus has more majors. So while Woods is among the greatest golfers, he is arguably not even the best golfer, except in that stupidly awesome stretch where he won four majors in a row (though not in the same year).

Na, it's really not. Nicklaus and Woods played in different eras, it's like comparing the home runs of Babe Ruth and Miguel Cabrera, or the cups of the Original Six Canadiens vs 10s Penguins. Woods was playing against a much stronger field, and his tournament by tournament statistics are light years beyond anyone else.

This is why if you're talking great athletes you have to actually analyze game by game statistics, how the athlete performed, day after day, throughout their career. And on this metric Woods is a far better golfer than Nicklaus. And the only reason he didn't win more majors is because he hurt his back.

In golf there is basically a pre and post Woods era, he completely changed the game globally.

Yeah, but technology advances have given a greater advantage to more recent players in golf more than any other major sport. So, individual stats (e.g., average drive distance, putts per green, greens reached in X shots, etc.) are pretty meaningless for comparing player at different times (even 10 years apart given rate of tech advancement). Any meaningful stat must be a standardized score against the same metrics of other current players on the same holes using similar tech. "Strokes gained" seems maybe one of the best, but I don't know if it is relative only to concurrent players, which would be more valid, and I doubt it's a stat available for Nicklaus, given that it depends upon knowing things like exactly how far from the hole each player was on their 2nd shot and how many shots it took to hole it.

 

[ronburgundy]

I'm less sure about how to assess Brady, it seems like a lot of his success can also be attributed to Bill Belichick and the Patriots.

The win with Tampa really just stops the questions, he is the GOAT of QBs in the NFL.

I can buy Brady is the QB GOAT, but I'm not convinced the win with Tampa did that much to change the argument for it. It does show he is smart and went to a team with a great defense, great o line, lots of ability and promised willingness to go all in get him anyone he wanted. But swap o lines and defenses and Mahomes wins that game.

As for whether he gets most of the credit for the Pats dynasty, I can also buy that, but it's a zero sum game between him and Bill. Is 6 superbowls in 20 years playing in a weak division and a conference with only a couple other consistently decent teams enough to divide between them and them both be the GOAT in each of their categories? Maybe. But also, whatever credit is given to Brady for Tampa deducts from the credit Bill get's for the Pats wins, especially since Bill never has done anything without Brady. I'm not saying they both are not the GOATS, but they cannot each be evaluated separately and each get credit for winning 6 Pats' superbowls. Basically, if they both get equal credit, then it's more comparable to a coach winning 3 with an average QB, or a QB winning 3 with an average coach.

 

[rousseau]

Tiger Woods was definitely a league of his own for several years. But Woods doesn't hold the record for most Majors. That is a significant flaw in his GOAT argument. Nicklaus has more majors. So while Woods is among the greatest golfers, he is arguably not even the best golfer, except in that stupidly awesome stretch where he won four majors in a row (though not in the same year).

Na, it's really not. Nicklaus and Woods played in different eras, it's like comparing the home runs of Babe Ruth and Miguel Cabrera, or the cups of the Original Six Canadiens vs 10s Penguins. Woods was playing against a much stronger field, and his tournament by tournament statistics are light years beyond anyone else.

This is why if you're talking great athletes you have to actually analyze game by game statistics, how the athlete performed, day after day, throughout their career. And on this metric Woods is a far better golfer than Nicklaus. And the only reason he didn't win more majors is because he hurt his back.

In golf there is basically a pre and post Woods era, he completely changed the game globally.

Yeah, but technology advances have given a greater advantage to more recent players in golf more than any other major sport. So, individual stats (e.g., average drive distance, putts per green, greens reached in X shots, etc.) are pretty meaningless for comparing player at different times (even 10 years apart given rate of tech advancement). Any meaningful stat must be a standardized score against the same metrics of other current players on the same holes using similar tech. "Strokes gained" seems maybe one of the best, but I don't know if it is relative only to concurrent players, which would be more valid, and I doubt it's a stat available for Nicklaus, given that it depends upon knowing things like exactly how far from the hole each player was on their 2nd shot and how many shots it took to hole it.

Tournament win ratio seems like a decent metric to compare across eras: https://www.pgatour.com/statsreport...iger-woods-record-tying-82-pga-tour-wins.html

Woods has the most tournament wins of any player, and his win ratio is almost double that of Nicklaus (and likely negatively affected by his health). Also notably he won 9 more prizes than Nicklaus in 236 less tournaments.

Of course that raises the question of whether he was truly playing against a harder field. That's my assumption, but it'd be interesting to see it analyzed. But just seeing Woods play during his prime it's hard to deny that his skill was almost unmatchable.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Na, it's really not. Nicklaus and Woods played in different eras, it's like comparing the home runs of Babe Ruth and Miguel Cabrera, or the cups of the Original Six Canadiens vs 10s Penguins. Woods was playing against a much stronger field, and his tournament by tournament statistics are light years beyond anyone else.

This is why if you're talking great athletes you have to actually analyze game by game statistics, how the athlete performed, day after day, throughout their career. And on this metric Woods is a far better golfer than Nicklaus. And the only reason he didn't win more majors is because he hurt his back.

In golf there is basically a pre and post Woods era, he completely changed the game globally.

Woods faced fields that were on average stronger than Nicklaus did. But that's pretty meaningless. If I had a choice between:

- Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Floyd, and Ballesteros
or
- Woods, Mickelson, Els, McIlroy, Koepka, etc.

It's not even close. The top players, i.e. the ones winning majors, were far superior in Nicklaus' time.