Is there anything more annoying than faggots who go on about athletes from the past being better than those around today? It's one thing to get an old man spouting this bullshit but it's a whole other level of bullshit when someone under the age of 25 watches an old youtube highlight video and proclaims Pele, Zidane, or Maradona to be better than Messi or Ronaldo.
Let me lay some facts down on you guys:
Fact: Messi and Ronaldo are the two best footballers ever.
Fact: Djokovic is the best tennis player ever.
Fact: LeBron James is the best Basketballer ever.
Fact: Lewis Hamilton is the best F1 driver ever.
Fact: Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer ever.
Fact: Tom Brady is the best American footballer ever.
>>66861391
>LeBron James is best basketballer ever
He was until now. Curry is the GOAT.
Yeah I'm with you. I hate faggots who bring up players from the 70s or before putting them as all time greats when they never saw them play and just listen to sports media. Fact is every athlete now is 10x better than any before
It's the worst on boxing forums, everyone thinks some moustached 180lb motherfucker from the 1890s would beat the Klitschkos or Lennox Lewis
>Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer ever.
>lebron
He's top 5. No one who knows the nba would ever say he's the goat
Fact: Djokovic is the best tennis player ever. Nope, Federer.
Fact: LeBron James is the best Basketballer ever. Not even close. Not even top 5.
Fact: Lewis Hamilton is the best F1 driver ever. Not a sport. Also cars are much more relevant than pilots.
Fact: Floyd Mayweather is the best boxer ever. No. Just No.
>>66861391
But should we talk about the skill relatively or absolutely? I am no doubt that modern football teams could crush teams from 50 years ago. And that reflects dramatic increases in both technical knowledge as well as better fitness. The same is true in many other sports. Therefore, is it fair to compare players in the way that you're suggesting. Should players be seen relative to their generation?
Chess actually provides a great example. If we put the top rated players of today against the top rated players a century ago, there would be no contest. In that time, there has been a vast increase in theory about the game, particularly with the advent of computers. Now, the difference of merely 20 or 30 years would be less pronounced, though the modern players should still win.
My point is that the players from a century ago were giants of their time. They vanquished basically all opposition. They could not really do any better, because they did not have access to the technical advances (that's decades of work from many, many people before you ask why they didn't do it themselves). If we took the same minds and game them modern training, who knows how good they could be? Incidentally, this is exactly why rating systems have so much trouble assigning historical ratings to players or comparing those who didn't play against each other.
So, when we compare Messi to Mardona, is it really fair? Moreover, is it even fair to compare players in different leagues? Is scoring 30 a season in the EPL better than scoring 30 in La Liga? At least you could argue in tennis or F1 that the 'players' compete against all the other top 'players' regularly rather than being in separate leagues.
Soccer: Maradona/Messi
Basketball: Michael Jordan
Boxer: Floyd Mayweather
Hockey: Gretzky
Tennis: Federer
Golf: Tiger Woods
Baseball: Babe Ruth
Overall greatest athlete of all time: Jordan
None of these points can be disputed.
>>66861769
>Maradona
Le win a world cup by cheating man is not the GOAT
>>66861391
lewis hamilton isn't even the best f1 driver right now
>>66861769
ask yourself: how much more would a modern competitor need to achieve to be considered better than the current GOAT in their sport
if the answer that they would need to accomplish a significant amount more, or that it is impossible, then it is unlikely that assessment of who is GOAT is an unbiased one
![michael_phelps_arenapro_swim_0308[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3zYQCpi.jpg "michael_phelps_arenapro_swim_0308[1].jpg")
did someone say GOAT?
Schumacher is the GOAT driver
So, OP doesn't rate Zidane?
>>66861391
It gets annoying when the reason is pure marketing, Michael Jordan being the best example.
The most reasonable conclusion is that you can't compare eras, however there's no fun in that.
You can provide stats, but even average players can pad them, like testaverde or bettis.
Dominance is a given, however people like Messi, Jordan, Kobe, Montana, Brady and Duncan will always have the advantage of being part of fantastic organizations, while people like Peypey, Pele and Lebron have the advantage of playing in weak division/conferences/leagues.
tl;dr don't take it too seriously, it's fun to argue about it
>>66861391
>proclaims Pele, Zidane, or Maradona to be better than Messi or Ronaldo.
>Zidane
>Too young to remember fucking Zinedine Zidane
>Literally being under 10 and posting on /sp/
