Ajla Tomljanović vs America

[Mav]

Let’s not confuse GOAT with “favourite player”. When we pick our favourite players, we’re entitled to take into account onfield and offield behaviour. We’re also entitled to take into account their ability to overcome adversity and their ability to extract everything from their bodies, even if they aren’t built like superheroes. For instance, Dean Rice was one of my favourites even though he wasn’t close to being the best in his time at Carlton.

[LP]

Yes, agreed, it's very very rare you get an obvious GOAT like Lance Armstrong.

[Thryleon]

Let’s not confuse GOAT with “favourite player”. When we pick our favourite players, we’re entitled to take into account onfield and offield behaviour. We’re also entitled to take into account their ability to overcome adversity and their ability to extract everything from their bodies, even if they aren’t built like superheroes. For instance, Dean Rice was one of my favourites even though he wasn’t close to being the best in his time at Carlton.

Im not. Novak went past Federer on titles, and by definition the fact that they even have a close tally (and directly competed for the same trophy) makes Novak even achieving what he has against the double act of Federer and Nadal quite remarkable.

HOWEVER:  Nadal will go down as the GOAT until he is surpassed, irrespective of how that is viewed by all and sundry.

[PaulP]

In my experience this is how people operate.  To be the GOAT its not solely about trophies its also about disposition, and for reference, I will point to the Roger Federer vs Novak Djokovic debate.  Nadal has become the currently undisputed GOAT but you don't need to guess whom would be the alternative sans Novak.

Hmm. There's a few things I'd say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong :
1. I get the impression that your criteria for GOAT is basically number of slams ? If so, I think you need to look at more than that to even start a discussion.
2. I'm not sure words like "undisputed" have any place in the airy-fairy world of GOAT debates. I'm not at all sure that Rafa is the "undisputed" GOAT in current discussions.
3. It seems to me as though you are framing what you see in a way that supports your conclusions. You have the conclusion before you go out looking from what I can tell.
4. Your argument would, by logic, have to work both ways. If the "experts" are mostly saying Serena is the GOAT, then you saying otherwise may mean (following your logic with Mav) that you have some personal bias against Serena. It's not as though Mav is the only one who thinks this.

Mav is focusing on Court's personal aspects because he's making a point, which is that if you weaponize your faith in a way that harms others, then the gloves are off and you forfeit the right to be treated nicely. You will have to make up your own mind as to whether that's appropriate.

[LP]

Mav is focusing on Court's personal aspects because he's making a point, which is that if you weaponize your faith in a way that harms others, then the gloves are off and you forfeit the right to be treated nicely. You will have to make up your own mind as to whether that's appropriate.

I find the concept of somehow weaponizing a personal perspective even more perplexing than the concept of declaring a GOAT.

Maybe if the combatant is a psychopath, but then in that circumstance everything is probably a weapon!

[PaulP]

I find the concept of somehow weaponizing a personal perspective even more perplexing than the concept of declaring a GOAT.

Maybe if the combatant is a psychopath, but then in that circumstance everything is probably a weapon!

If you hold an opinion, and you accept no agency for that opinion ("it's not me, it's just what the Bible says"), and if you fail to acknowledge or accept that your opinion has clear negative consequences, that is for mine a weaponized opinion.

[LP]

If you hold an opinion, and you accept no agency for that opinion ("it's not me, it's just what the Bible says"), and if you fail to acknowledge or accept that your opinion has clear negative consequences, that is for mine a weaponised opinion.

Yet, to me, that very position seems to be a tad circular [member=64]PaulP[/member]

There are frames of reference at play here that can potentially turn this into a never ending philosophical debate. I'm not sure how you discuss any issue based on faith and avoid your conclusion, to some degree at some level it's an inherent part of the belief system that you would conclude is weaponised.

[Thryleon]

Hmm. There's a few things I'd say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong :
1. I get the impression that your criteria for GOAT is basically number of slams ? If so, I think you need to look at more than that to even start a discussion.
2. I'm not sure words like "undisputed" have any place in the airy-fairy world of GOAT debates. I'm not at all sure that Rafa is the "undisputed" GOAT in current discussions.
3. It seems to me as though you are framing what you see in a way that supports your conclusions. You have the conclusion before you go out looking from what I can tell.
4. Your argument would, by logic, have to work both ways. If the "experts" are mostly saying Serena is the GOAT, then you saying otherwise may mean (following your logic with Mav) that you have some personal bias against Serena. It's not as though Mav is the only one who thinks this.

Mav is focusing on Court's personal aspects because he's making a point, which is that if you weaponize your faith in a way that harms others, then the gloves are off and you forfeit the right to be treated nicely. You will have to make up your own mind as to whether that's appropriate.

I think you've misunderstood what im saying and that can be due to how its been written.

The greatest of all time puts the score on the board.  Whether or not they are likable is an extra dimension that isn't worth discussing and isn't something im necessarily interested in, but I believe others are. 

Does that frame what im trying to say better and answer your question?

I dont see things in a way that supports my conclusions, I have drawn my conclusions from observing this behaviour.

[Mav]

But you’re conflating GOAT with the number of slams won. That’s just 1 relevant measure. And you can’t say that other measures can’t be considered because the mix of measures is subjective. This is especially the case when we’re talking a differential of only 1 slam and there’s heated agreement that comparisons between different eras are fraught.

For instance, Plugger unquestionably holds the record for the greatest number of goals kicked. But that doesn’t mean a case can’t be made that Jason Dunstall is the greatest FF in history. He played in 4 premierships while Plugger and Ablett played in none. As Ablett showed when he kicked 14 against Essendon, eclipsing Salmon’s 10, big bags don’t necessarily win games. Dunstall was more of a team player. And that might lead some to put him ahead of Plugger or Ablett. (Apologies to Coventry by the way)

[Gointocarlton]

Hmm. There's a few things I'd say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong :
1. I get the impression that your criteria for GOAT is basically number of slams ? If so, I think you need to look at more than that to even start a discussion.

Pauly can you elaborate on bold bit 2 please. Bold bit 1 is my criteria (ie number of titles) and there nothing else by which to measure IMO.