GOAT debate is worthless.

[HHJ]

It's still real to me dammit!!!!





Seriously, all fair points. Still a fun, if oftentimes infuriating, point of discussion, though.
You've obviously stepped up to a higher plane, H. I remember you being a "Fedor supremacist."
Well done.

I will always be a Fedor Supremacist.

 

[Fioretti]

27 is more than 22. It isn’t inherently a greater accomplishment or higher degree of greatness. I guess we will just disagree there. Greater or greatness are inherently subjective terms. It is objectively more. Not greater or higher greatness. Just like 32 pitching wins in 1890 isn’t inherently greater than 30 wins in 2022. It’s more.

He’s not saying they are built in measurements. He’s saying it’s the ONLY criteria. Are you not getting that? They are INPUTS into the equation. Again, with quality of competition, dominance, era adjustments, losses, eye test, performances, etc. Again, SRR has TWELVE title wins. He’s almost universally acknowledged as the p4p goat. Ali is probably the consensus hw goat. They don’t have a statistical argument based on the criteria he’s trying to put forward as the only criteria.

How do you personally define the word "greater"? What do you think it means?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

I mean... if you really want to be a wet blanket, the whole sport is pretty pointless.

If you remove all the fun but pointless things from life, men would destroy the world.

 

[pankrat]

Stats are highly involved, whether you like it or not. That's essentially all we have to measure greatness. Facts > opinions.

Go around saying Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain are the greatest ever in basketball because "fact>opinions" lol. Imagine being that guy

 

[kflo]

How do you personally define the word "greater"? What do you think it means?

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.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

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.

False.

All you have to do is agree on objective criteria that take all that stuff into account, then choose a GOAT based on that. Ideally the people voting on the criteria are the elite resident Sherdog MMA experts.

Then you will have a credible GOAT selection.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

I mean... if you really want to be a wet blanket, the whole sport is pretty pointless.

If you remove all the fun but pointless things from life, men would destroy the world.

Yeah! Without the fun but pointless stuff we would last maybe 30 seconds, it would be a brawl with nukes and frowns

 

[kflo]

False.

All you have to do is agree on objective criteria that take all that stuff into account, then choose a GOAT based on that. Ideally the people voting on the criteria are the elite resident Sherdog MMA experts.

Then you will have a credible GOAT selection.

it's impossible to take subjectivity out of it.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

it's impossible to take subjectivity out of it.

The choosing of the criteria is subjective, but then the selecting of the fighter based on this criteria is pretty much objective.

What I described is probably the most robust method of choosing a GOAT, having experts select criteria.

 

[kflo]

The choosing of the criteria is subjective, but then the selecting of the fighter based on this criteria is pretty much objective.

What I described is probably the most robust method of choosing a GOAT, having experts select criteria.

there will inherently be subjectivity in the criteria itself. this isn't a math equation. there's never been strict objective criteria in any goat discussion, and almost all rankings include subjectivity. to just say a goat is based on objective criteria isn't really possible. not without people being able to call out flaws.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

there will inherently be subjectivity in the criteria itself. this isn't a math equation. there's never been objective criteria in any goat discussion, and almost all rankings include subjectivity. to just say a goat is based on objective criteria isn't really possible. not without people being able to call out flaws.

No one's saying subjectivity would be completely taken out of the equation.

The question is whether the concept of GOAT is worthless.

And I say no. With MMA experts agreeing on objective criteria and how to weight them, you get a credible and transparent result in who is GOAT by those criteria.

So it wouldn't be worthless, it would be a pretty robust selection. Now, the selection wouldn't be without its flaws, but it would be way more robust than what occurs on MMA forums.

 

[kflo]

No one's saying subjectivity would be completely taken out of the equation.

The question is whether the concept of GOAT is worthless.

And I say no. With MMA experts agreeing on objective criteria and how to weight them, you get a credible and transparent result in who is GOAT by those criteria.

So it wouldn't be worthless, it would be a pretty robust selection. Now, the selection wouldn't be without its flaws, but it would be way more robust than what occurs on MMA forums.

fightmatrix is a stat based ranking system. and of course, it has it's flaws and people debate rankings within it all the time.

i didn't say it would be worthless, but it wouldn't determine who the goat is either.

i am old enough to remember when jordan retired in '93. there was little objective basis to conclude he was the goat, yet many already considered him the goat. because the criteria for goat isn't a formula, or fixed. it can vary depending on the individual. and people suggesting he was already the goat weren't inherently wrong.

objective criteria will almost always rank SRL lower than where he actually gets ranked by most historians or fans.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

fightmatrix is a stat based ranking system. and of course, it has it's flaws and people debate rankings within it all the time.

i didn't say it would be worthless, but it wouldn't determine who the goat is either.

i am old enough to remember when jordan retired in '93. there was little objective basis to conclude he was the goat, yet many already considered him the goat. because the criteria for goat isn't a formula, or fixed. it can vary depending on the individual. and people suggesting he was already the goat weren't inherently wrong.

objective criteria will almost always rank SRL lower than where he actually gets ranked by most historians or fans.

Objective doesn't necessarily mean whatever stats are laying about in my example, btw. The UFC has a pretty meager selection of stats for viewing. They could take all kinds of information into account, pretty much the same info that historians would have.

 

[kflo]

Objective doesn't necessarily mean whatever stats are laying about in my example, btw. The UFC has a pretty meager selection of stats for viewing. They could take all kinds of information into account, pretty much the same info that historians would have.

i'm not sure what you mean. i'm saying it's not all about stats. it's about the individuals too.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

i'm not sure what you mean. i'm saying it's not all about stats. it's about the individuals too.

You mentioned fightmatrix, which is a quantitative ranking system.

I'm saying a set of experts would not be using solely quantitative methodologies, it would be more of a holistic ranking system that takes into account many different historical facts as well.

My point is that it would be possible to come up with a pretty robust approximation of who the GOAT is using a panel of experts.

They'd first determine which criteria were the most important, then score fighters on that criteria. The criteria themselves could be qualitative as well as quantitative.

You'd say, 'well their GOAT would still not be the GOAT !'.

GOAT is obviously a nebulous and subjective concept. Experts would apply some measure of objectivity and credibility to it. That's all.

 

[kflo]

You mentioned fightmatrix, which is a quantitative ranking system.

I'm saying a set of experts would not be using solely quantitative methodologies, it would be more of a holistic ranking system that takes into account many different historical facts as well.

My point is that it would be possible to come up with a pretty robust approximation of who the GOAT is using a panel of experts.

They'd first determine which criteria were the most important, then score fighters on that criteria. The criteria themselves could be qualitative as well as quantitative.

You'd say, 'well their GOAT would still not be the GOAT !'.

GOAT is obviously a nebulous and subjective concept. Experts would apply some measure of objectivity and credibility to it. That's all.

ok. well put.

that said, it's still ultimately individual opinion. and a panel labeling someone a goat doesn't make that individual the goat. it makes them the goat opinion of that panel.

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

ok. well put.

that said, it's still ultimately individual opinion. and a panel labeling someone a goat doesn't make that individual the goat. it makes them the goat opinion of that panel.

Better the panel, better the GOAT opinion. My 'allstar' panel:

- Chael Sonnen
- Conor McGregor
- Ali Abdelaziz
- Ariel Helwani
- Jake Paul

 

[BFoe]

The choosing of the criteria is subjective, but then the selecting of the fighter based on this criteria is pretty much objective.

What I described is probably the most robust method of choosing a GOAT, having experts select criteria.

Yes, but there’s still subjectivity that can’t be avoided—so I wouldn’t say that selecting a fighter based on criteria is even objective.
I’ll give some examples.
Ranked wins is something that most fans agree is a good metric. From about 2014 on, the UFC has issued rankings. So if Izzy, or Stipe, or Usman, beats a guy that the UFC has seen fit to rank in the top 10 of their org, it’s a ranked win. But if you try and compare them to Anderson, Fedor, or GSP, you have to go back to a time when the MMA media issued the rankings, and it was across all promotions. They listed the best 10 WWs (or HWs, or whatever) in the world—not 10 best in the org. And sometimes one outlet had a fighter ranked and another didn’t. So then what?
Title defenses can be an issue too. Which titles do we care about? UFC, Strikeforce, PRIDE? What if someone is WEC or Elite XC champ? What about Fedor and Aoiki’s WAMMA belts? Should we count them but weight them differently? And if so, why?

And so on, and so forth…

 

[SouthpawSouthernFist]

Yes, but there’s still subjectivity that can’t be avoided—so I wouldn’t say that selecting a fighter based on criteria is even objective.
I’ll give some examples.
Ranked wins is something that most fans agree is a good metric. From about 2014 on, the UFC has issued rankings. So if Izzy, or Stipe, or Usman, beats a guy that the UFC has seen fit to rank in the top 10 of their org, it’s a ranked win. But if you try and compare them to Anderson, Fedor, or GSP, you have to go back to a time when the MMA media issued the rankings, and it was across all promotions. They listed the best 10 WWs (or HWs, or whatever) in the world—not 10 best in the org. And sometimes one outlet had a fighter ranked and another didn’t. So then what?
Title defenses can be an issue too. Which titles do we care about? UFC, Strikeforce, PRIDE? What if someone is WEC or Elite XC champ? What about Fedor and Aoiki’s WAMMA belts? Should we count them but weight them differently? And if so, why?

And so on, and so forth…

Ya, but this group of easily resolve discrepancies is why you bring in experts.

 

[BFoe]

Ya, but this group of easily resolve discrepancies is why you bring in experts.

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.