Best played against Eusebio twice in the European Cup and dominated the game both times. Most famously when they won it in '68. Best was on fire. Eusebio not so much.
You may be right about the consensus; probably Vinatieri would get lots of votes as the best kicker. I’m not sure it’s really justified though.
Remarkably silly - comparing a sport where 4 rbi/game is excellent to one in which the comparable figure is something like 100.
Wait, what?
A great outing in Cricket is to score 100 runs (a century) before getting out. The game of cricket is understood to be a bit sloppier in execution than baseball, as the runs don’t count as much, so accuracy in bowling and batting is less important than… err… okay, I don’t really get any objection that baseball players are tasked with a much more physically demanding job than cricket players.
That being said, the only unquestioned GOAT in football is Ray Guy. Everything else is up for discussion.
Not true at all.
Cite.
His main distinction is having been selected in the first round of the draft. He might not even be the best punter in the history of the Raiders.
No. That’s the answer. There are five running backs I’m very partial to though: Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, Earl Campbell, Gale Sayers. Then there’s Dorsett, Dickerson, Allen, etc, etc, ETC, ETC. So I’m gonna say no. I think the only position you could really have a “GOAT” at would be punter, simply because there isn’t a lot to it.
I think that with the way that football evolves there would be no criteria that you can use to determine how a player compares to others that came before. A GOAT from now may not be able to play the game as it was in 1920 or 1950, and a player from then would not be able to compete in today’s league (especially since they would be over 100 <rimshot>) The best you could do is a greatest player of an era.
I am a Packer fan, and I came in to make the same comment. I don’t deny that Rice is on the very short list for GOAT at WR, but Hutson was more dominant at his position than Rice was. He really was the first real pass-catching threat in the NFL.
All Hutson’s (remaining) records are of the “leading league in X for most seasons” type. They’re essentially meaningless, since nobody else was any good at catching passes in his era.
Meh, at the time there wasn’t a huge difference between the Brazilian league and European leagues. Pele’s schooled Eusebio, Beckenbauer, and other all time greats in matches. Best? Come on. If you’re set on naming a European you’ve got to go with Cruijff.
I think it’s a silly argument to say that some historical sports star is less than some modern sports star because of how much better the modern competition is. Modern players will always be better than historical players because the historical greats pushed the game to the new levels, giving modern players a greater base to learn from.
Also, nobody ever flips that coin; people mention that Wilt Chamberlain wouldn’t be so dominant playing against modern players, but nobody ever stops to imagine what Michael Jordan’s game might have looked like if he had learned the game by competing against the smaller, lesser-skilled players that Wilt had grown up playing with, without any of the modern basketball knowledge that has been learned since Wilt’s time. This alternate history MJ probably would have still become a stand-out amongst his peers, but he also probably wouldn’t hold a candle in a heads-up competition to the Michael Jordan that came up in more modern times.
If you dropped this sorta argument on an NBA forum it would turn into a 25 page trainwreck with lots of misleading height comparison pictures both ways. Or it would just get locked because it draws in so many era trolls. I’ll just say that NBA players in the '60s are not noticably undersized compared to today’s players. You can see this because they are still alive and hang out with current players.
Brad Miller?! Brad friggin’ Mi–
But Wilt is the most athletic 7 footer ever.
100 yard dash: 10.9 seconds
440: 49.0 seconds
880: 1:58.3 seconds
Highjump: 6’6
Longjump: 22’
Triple jump: 50’
Shaq would take 75+ FGA/gm? Wilt holds the record with 39.5 FGA/gm, which is mind boggling selfish but also way ahead of second place (29.5). Even if we assume Shaq is 100 times better than Wilt he couldn’t approach this because he would be triple teamed all the time and, unlike Wilt, he can’t make a shot outside of 8 feet.
This is an article discussing the Dream Team.
I don’t want to argue height much because it just doesn’t matter that much in individual comparisons unless someons is trying to disparage the '60s as midgets. Kobe has admitted in an article that his wife measured him as 6’4. Hakeem said he’s closer to 6’9 than 7’0. Does this really matter? Not really. There are plenty of examples of “short” players dominating their taller opposition. This only matters if someone tries to make era comparisons and claim that today’s big men are 7’0 wunderkids.
It gets pretty silly when you look into individual cases and you notice guys who have big hair, sloping shoulders, long necks – or my personal favorite, Barkley’s pointy head.
'60s MJ would have 50-15-10 seasons and then a modern fan would say he’d ride the pine behind Randy Foye if he played today.
(Sorry mods, but I’m going to invoke OP rights here)
Ok, anybody who thinks MJ wasn’t the G.O.A.T. in basketball is insane. Anybody who invokes Wilt’s height vs the competition or Russell’s dominance vs poorly coached/and/or/racist teams needs to re-examine what MJ has achieved vs superior opponents. Seriously, he won by sheer force of will over superior opponents (i.e. Stockton’s Jazz, Shaq’s Magic, Ewing’s Knicks, etc.) And that being said, I’m going to flame anybody who thinks Tiger Woods isn’t the G.O.A.T. at golf.
Other topics: My point was that football is a team game. Ten years from now, we’re going to be praising the 2000’s Colt’s O-line as the G.O.A.T.'s in the NFL.
A lot of people confuse “Greatest In His Era” with “Greatest of Al Time”. Jordan was a phenomenal player and is possibly the best guard to ever play the game, but he’s just not the best player of all time. Watch more ESPN Classic.
What the fuck?
Seriously, what the fuck? “He’s just not.” Well, OK then.
You understand, don’t you, that this is a conversation that’s been going on for a while, right? With things like reasons and observations being bandied about? Do you have anything at all to say other than repeating your opinion as a fact? It wouldn’t bother me at all if you didn’t do it so incredibly frequently, but how many times exactly do you plan on just saying “no, this isn’t true, that isn’t true, this is true” in these kinds of threads without anything at all to back it up? Four million? Is it four million?
If it’s four million tell me.
More? Less?
It’s not true.
4,000,001
In all seriousness, I think Nicklaus is the GOAT.