GOAT debate is worthless.

I don’t think they are easily resolvable. And I certainly wouldn’t want anyone on this panel that is on the UFC payroll, ESPN payroll, might be looking to curry favor with any org, etc.
It’s a reasonable idea, I just don’t see it solving anything.

There is nothing to solve, lol.

GOAT is a purely theoretical idea. All you can do is come up with a metric or process that produces the best possible guestimate.

If you find a panel of unbiased experts to create transparent criteria and judging, that would produce the highest quality estimate, as in almost any field.
 
Here’s ring magazine’s top boxers by weight class. It’s chosen by a panel of experts / historians.

https://www.ringtv.com/628040-divsion-by-divsion-middleweight-junior-welterweight/

They don’t use any real objective criteria, and i am pretty certain nowhere on the list will you find a single reference to top 10 wins. You will see some references to title defenses but I’m not sure the #1 for any weight class is the leader in title defenses. Grigorian isn’t even an honorable mention at LW.
 
There is nothing to solve, lol.

GOAT is a purely theoretical idea. All you can do is come up with a metric or process that produces the best possible guestimate.

If you find a panel of unbiased experts to create transparent criteria and judging, that would produce the highest quality estimate, as in almost any field.
I just listed things that would have to be solved though. And I don’t know how we’d determine that the group was unbiased. They’ll come to a certain consensus on these controversial points, some fans will agree, some won’t. I don’t even know that we can say that whatever consensus that panel comes to is the “highest quality estimate.” It would be a consensus opinion from 1 specific panel. It would have some value, but that value would be limited.
 
Go around saying Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain are the greatest ever in basketball because "fact>opinions" lol. Imagine being that guy

That's not what I'm saying. I'm from Chicago originally anyway, so I know what's good, Patty.

i'm not sure why you are asking me this in response to what i posted. This is what you said:

"The greater numbers have already established a greater accomplishment, and a higher degree of greatness."
you already defined how you were using "greater". the underlined are obviously subjective terms. so it's really puzzling you would respond to my post with your question and not address what i said.

You said more isn't greater. It is. It still applies to MMA. If someone has more title defenses, they have a greater amount, and have achieved a greater, or higher degree, of accomplishment in that category than someone with less.

I agree it's not the only metric, but it's fact, it's built-in, is undeniable, irrefutable, and should always be the starting point. Facts should always come before opinion. Objectivity before subjectivity.
 
You guys can keep pretending the revisionist history based on the looks of his record on fight finder.

Do not forget the general consensus in the MMA community and particularly in the so called "global authority in mixed martial arts":

Sherdog p4p rankings during GSP championship years
2012 - Silva #1
https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/Sherdogcoms-PoundforPound-Top-10-45047

2011 - Silva #1
https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/Sherdogcoms-PoundforPound-Top-10-36383

2010 - Silva #1
https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/Sherdogcoms-PoundforPound-Top-10-23166

2009 - Silva #1
https://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/Sherdogcoms-PoundforPound-Top-10-17145

2008 - Silva #1
https://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/GSP-Moves-Up-P4P-List-But-Not-to-Top-12459

In 2007, Fedor was #1 and GSP got stopped by Serra
Just because you're the self-proclaimed "Global authority" doesn't make it a real thing.

It's a bunch of people with an opinion. Why you so hung up on GOAT anyway? Who cares about this completely subjective thing that literally has no way of being proven factual?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHJ
That's not what I'm saying. I'm from Chicago originally anyway, so I know what's good, Patty.



You said more isn't greater. It is. It still applies to MMA. If someone has more title defenses, they have a greater amount, and have achieved a greater, or higher degree, of accomplishment in that category than someone with less.

I agree it's not the only metric, but it's fact, it's built-in, is undeniable, irrefutable, and should always be the starting point. Facts should always come before opinion. Objectivity before subjectivity.

Answer this: is winning 32 games in 1890 as a pitcher a GREATER ACCOMPLISHMENT than winning 30 games as a pitcher in 2022?

Is it a “higher degree of greatness”?

Answer the question honestly and maybe we can have a real discussion.

Again, this back and forth started because I was having a discussion with someone suggesting the ONLY thing that matters is title defenses. And you decided to jump on my position and not that one.

Again, look at the ring magazine link above. I’m not sure a single weight class is lead by the title defense leader.

And title defenses is ONE fact amongst scores of other facts.
 
There is one GOAT
8QnH9AhsRfhPott7REiFUXXJLRIxi8KMAP0mFAZpYgd44OTOCtScwXeb5oPe1E4eP4oF


BUT many sheeps
sheep-picture-id962277162


And there is Jon Jones
JT-1001-02-940x940.jpg

:D:D:D
 
Just because you're the self-proclaimed "Global authority" doesn't make it a real thing.

It's a bunch of people with an opinion. Why you so hung up on GOAT anyway? Who cares about this completely subjective thing that literally has no way of being proven factual?

Here you are getting into this garbage thread and replying to me, so ask that question to yourself.

The "global authority in mixed martial arts" refers to sherdog, thats how they call themselves.
I just shared a fact, not an opinion: pundits acknowledged Silva as the better p4p fighter during GSP championship reigns. If it hurts your feelings dont blame.
 
That's not what I'm saying. I'm from Chicago originally anyway, so I know what's good, Patty.

Yes, its exactly what you are saying, friend. Its stupid, I agree. Accept it and move on.
 
Here you are getting into this garbage thread and replying to me, so ask that question to yourself.

The "global authority in mixed martial arts" refers to sherdog, thats how they call themselves.
I just shared a fact, not an opinion: pundits acknowledged Silva as the better p4p fighter during GSP championship reigns. If it hurts your feelings dont blame.
You're way too hung up on GSP vs Silva, dude. Let it go. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: HHJ
You're way too hung up on GSP vs Silva, dude. Let it go. lol

Am I?
How do you know on the 1st place? Is maybe the case that you are way too hung up on this kind of threads?

Cool to know I made a number on you. Probably is because my argument have power. Don't blame me though
 
GOAT meant something before Dana touched it.
 
Am I?
How do you know on the 1st place? Is maybe the case that you are way too hung up on this kind of threads?

Cool to know I made a number on you. Probably is because my argument have power. Don't blame me though
What you just said isn't even English, which is fine because I assume it is not your 1st language but jeez dude, if you are that upset you can't even make a coherent post now, it shows how wrapped up you are in some meaningless comparison between two of the greatest mixed martial artists of all-time.

Who are you trying you convince your opinion on this fantasy topic is correct? I sure as hell never once thought I was going to sway your opinion any of the 100 times we've argued over it. They're both long gone now, yet you're still making a big stink about it and resorting to name calling over it because that is how upset you are about it.

Smoke a joint, chill out, relax. It's just an opinion.
 
Answer this: is winning 32 games in 1890 as a pitcher a GREATER ACCOMPLISHMENT than winning 30 games as a pitcher in 2022?

Is it a “higher degree of greatness”?

Answer the question honestly and maybe we can have a real discussion.

Again, this back and forth started because I was having a discussion with someone suggesting the ONLY thing that matters is title defenses. And you decided to jump on my position and not that one.

Again, look at the ring magazine link above. I’m not sure a single weight class is lead by the title defense leader.

And title defenses is ONE fact amongst scores of other facts.

This is who contributed to that article:

"A panel of history-minded editors, scribes and pundits contributed their top five fighters in all 17 of the modern weight classes to determine the best of the best in each division."

This is a bunch of people giving their opinions on who their top 5 are. The fact that it's not based on data basically means it's a list of their favorites. "History-minded editors" aren't quite "historians" as you previously described either.

I'm not too big on baseball, and am not sure why you're so stuck on 32 wins vs 30 wins, but 32 is obviously the greater number. I'm guessing they played more games back then? Not sure what your angle is here, or why you're so stuck on this analogy, but it's pretty irrelevant in regards to MMA.

My point is that both of you are correct on some things and both of you are incorrect on others. You were being intentionally difficult before, which is why I mentioned it.

The concept of "greatest" is pretty simple. Math, stats, numbers, and objectivity make it pretty easy to start the analysis. Favoritism, opinions, and bias make it fucky. In a 30 year old 1 on 1 combat sport, it's fairly obvious who has achieved what in comparison to their peers. Yes, it's more than just stats, as usual, but stats cannot be ignored. It starts with stats. Those numbers are a built-in metric to measure greatness against greatness. The stats chosen to analyze should directly reflect what makes a fighter great. The ones who can't agree are typically being biased in some way.
 
There is no greatest of all time,just the fighter you happen to like the most,at any given time.

All these fighters fought in different eras,weight classes,which presented their own set of benefits and serious challenges.

Obviously the matchmaking system is much looser in the past,and the stance towards PED's. But these men would fight twice,sometimes three times as much as the average fighter now..for alot less pay. Alot more short notice fights,alot more last min opponent changes. Sometimes you didnt even know what the full card was until you watched it. Alot less ways to study your opponents because footage on them would be difficult,and sometimes impossible to obtain. Pride didnt even have public weigh ins!

Those people with their noses up in the air about how much better (or more talented the fighters are) it is now,ought to think about that.

Now things are presented alot clearer,with a rankings system,that helps to keep things competitive and more difficult (for some) to make it to the top. Would todays stars have an easier time in the wilder more loose way the sport was run 20 yrs ago? Or would the hardened warriors who didnt mind throwin hands 6 times a year,dominate the current crop of guys we have,and make them look like sissies?

There's no way to tell. So shut up.

You could say Khabib was the best LW of his era,and that BJ was the best in his. Thats about as far as you can really go.

<Fedor23><Fedor23><Fedor23><Fedor23><Fedor23>
agreed except Silva, Fedor, GSP, and Jon Jones are miles ahead of every other fighter who ever competed...
 
This is who contributed to that article:

"A panel of history-minded editors, scribes and pundits contributed their top five fighters in all 17 of the modern weight classes to determine the best of the best in each division."

This is a bunch of people giving their opinions on who their top 5 are. The fact that it's not based on data basically means it's a list of their favorites. "History-minded editors" aren't quite "historians" as you previously described either.
Yeah, I’m difficult…..smh……. Here’s fuckin quote from the article. You should read it.

“The Ring enlisted the services of various historians and writers”.
https://www.ringtv.com/627200-division-by-division-the-greatest-fighters-of-all-time/

Nowhere does it even imply it’s a list of “favorites”. You just can’t accept a list that isn’t built off of your pet issue. Stats…..

You want to invalidate their picks because it’s not strictly based on a collection of predetermined stats?

I'm not too big on baseball, and am not sure why you're so stuck on 32 wins vs 30 wins, but 32 is obviously the greater number. I'm guessing they played more games back then? Not sure what your angle is here, or why you're so stuck on this analogy, but it's pretty irrelevant in regards to MMA.

It disproves your position that a higher number is automatically a “greater accomplishment” or a “higher degree of greatness”. I’m not surprised you refuse to learn. They didn’t play more games. The pitchers PITCHED a lot more games, and it was common in 1890 to win 30 games, and today it’s rare to win 20 games. Winning 30 games in 2022 would clearly be a FAR greater accomplishment”. Not even close. It’s clear that more <> greater. But acknowledging it doesn’t help your position so you instead just dismiss the question.

My point is that both of you are correct on some things and both of you are incorrect on others. You were being intentionally difficult before, which is why I mentioned it.

He was not correct at all. He was wrong. It’s impossible to argue that “wins as the #1 fighter” is the only relevant criteria that automatically determines the goat. Impossible.

The concept of "greatest" is pretty simple. Math, stats, numbers, and objectivity make it pretty easy to start the analysis. Favoritism, opinions, and bias make it fucky. In a 30 year old 1 on 1 combat sport, it's fairly obvious who has achieved what in comparison to their peers. Yes, it's more than just stats, as usual, but stats cannot be ignored. It starts with stats. Those numbers are a built-in metric to measure greatness against greatness. The stats chosen to analyze should directly reflect what makes a fighter great. The ones who can't agree are typically being biased in some way.

YOU think it starts with stats. What stats do you want to use to compare boxers? What stats support SRR as the goat? Or ali? Or do you want to suggest they can’t objectively be the goat?

They are all inputs and ultimately the decision by any individual is subjective. And you calling it biased or fuckery is meaningless. Since there is no absolute answer.

What stats matter the most? Do losses matter? Does prime vs total matter? Does peak matter? Does top 10 matter? Top 5? Top 3? Which ranking system? Title defense? Finishes? Skills? You eyes?
 
Yeah, I’m difficult…..smh……. Here’s fuckin quote from the article. You should read it.

“The Ring enlisted the services of various historians and writers”.
https://www.ringtv.com/627200-division-by-division-the-greatest-fighters-of-all-time/

Nowhere does it even imply it’s a list of “favorites”. You just can’t accept a list that isn’t built off of your pet issue. Stats…..

You want to invalidate their picks because it’s not strictly based on a collection of predetermined stats?



It disproves your position that a higher number is automatically a “greater accomplishment” or a “higher degree of greatness”. I’m not surprised you refuse to learn. They didn’t play more games. The pitchers PITCHED a lot more games, and it was common in 1890 to win 30 games, and today it’s rare to win 20 games. Winning 30 games in 2022 would clearly be a FAR greater accomplishment”. Not even close. It’s clear that more <> greater. But acknowledging it doesn’t help your position so you instead just dismiss the question.



He was not correct at all. He was wrong. It’s impossible to argue that “wins as the #1 fighter” is the only relevant criteria that automatically determines the goat. Impossible.



YOU think it starts with stats. What stats do you want to use to compare boxers? What stats support SRR as the goat? Or ali? Or do you want to suggest they can’t objectively be the goat?

They are all inputs and ultimately the decision by any individual is subjective. And you calling it biased or fuckery is meaningless. Since there is no absolute answer.

What stats matter the most? Do losses matter? Does prime vs total matter? Does peak matter? Does top 10 matter? Top 5? Top 3? Which ranking system? Title defense? Finishes? Skills? You eyes?

Hey, so are you basing that baseball analogy off of math? Stats? Weird.
 
What you just said isn't even English, which is fine because I assume it is not your 1st language but jeez dude, if you are that upset you can't even make a coherent post now, it shows how wrapped up you are in some meaningless comparison between two of the greatest mixed martial artists of all-time.

Who are you trying you convince your opinion on this fantasy topic is correct? I sure as hell never once thought I was going to sway your opinion any of the 100 times we've argued over it. They're both long gone now, yet you're still making a big stink about it and resorting to name calling over it because that is how upset you are about it.

Smoke a joint, chill out, relax. It's just an opinion.

Excuse me, where was the name calling?
It rather sounds that you take my posts as offensive to your feelings, since ur very first reply.
I do not pretend to convince anybody, some of the many fanboys on here parrot their BS narrative and I enjoy breaking it, its just sherdog. You can consider GOAT whoever you wish, still a BS narrative is a BS narrative

I often smoke joints when wasting my time here but thanks for the advice, I do think I've improved my English during my time here btw, because I dont have many occasions to work on it otherwise.
Given that you correct my English, it would be nice from you to point out the mistake/s, other than from some meaningless misspelling, what I expressed uncorrectly in the previous post? I'd like to know
 
Back
Top