Substack superstar Freddie deBoer had an interesting piece yesterday about the way sports pundits use the term “GOAT.” Despite purportedly identifying the greatest of “all time”, in truth the title changes hands more often than the old WWE Hardcore championship, essentially little more than empty, provisional praise.
I think you had recently referred to the "Era of Machida" sarcastically, but this has been a problem forever with MMA media. I think part of it is that the UFC itself doesn't care about it's own history or that of the sport's at large given Dana's falling out with virtually every fighter who has come through the promotion. The same will, in turn, be true for Conor McGregor one day, which will lead to some amusing conversations should we live to see them in 25 years.
That said, Mahomes is different. The comparisons I've seen made to Tiger Woods or Jordan in the late 80s seem appropriate: you know what you're seeing is different. You're seeing something better than you've perhaps seen anything before in that realm. Both Jordan and Tiger are put opposite historic legends (Russell, Nickalus) who's greatness in pure titles will remain unmatched, and I think Mahomes will to some degree fall victim to this with Brady as well. Everyone knows with Mahomes that his mechanics are not "proper" but that his insane athleticism is able to more than make up for what were considered deficits. At some point, that athleticism will be dinged up and lead to a Tommy John surgery or ACL repair that separates his career into distinct periods of prime and post-prime. But Prime Mahomes, however long should he reign, is the guy I'd choose to lead my football team should I be given a time machine and need the playcaller to win for the survival of myself/family/mankind.
I agree. I said he was the best I've ever seen play quarterback and stand by that. Obviously comparing across eras is difficult. What would Steve Young or Joe Montana, for example, look like in a game where basically no one was allowed to hit them?
Brady was on the best team and had the ice water in his veins. I don't think that should be discounted. But, even in his prime, I think Manning was a more talented quarterback. Because these are team sports, it's easy to get mixed up. I distinctly remember a time Jordan was considered a loser because his teams weren't very good.
He was the same player when he was being venerated. It's just the teams were better.
The thing about the GOAT discussion is that we've decided to incorporate "lengthy tenure" as a necessary component of the prize. I actually had a long argument with Kristina about this right before writing the piece. She doesn't see why Mahomes needs 10 "pretty good" years tagged on to the end of a career to be considered the best. Why not, she asks, consider these guys as they existed at their absolute best?
I admit I am not opposed to that. Sandy Koufax, etc, etc.
Peyton called his own plays, which is sort of like writing your own songs as a musician. If you can manage to be great at both, it's a lot more impressive to some of us than being good at only one. At the same time, the position has changed like you pointed out and the demands are different. Peyton might have lost some of those head to head battles in part because he wasn't having plays called by someone incrementally better. I guess I could bloviate about it more but I'm not an expert and I'm sure to anyone who was this would be beyond amateurish levels of analysis. I am the most casual of casual fans now when it comes to football.
Highest peak vs. Greatest Sustained Run is a legitimate discussion point with being the #1 All Time Great candidate. With Mahomes, I can see the rationale much more clearly than *insert UFC guy here* in part because Mahomes has managed to already win 3 Super Bowls and the inherent challenge of that is far greater than making 3 title defenses given how you can artificially boost someone's record by putting them in bouts where they have clear advantages. Mahomes has had easily the worst of his Super Bowl winning teams around him and still managed wins on the road in Buffalo and Baltimore (just for example).
I think most sports analysis is amateurish to people actually involved in the enterprise. Those purporting to be "serious" often more than most.
I totally agree with you on Mahomes. On some level, these rankings of elite athletes are about minor distinctions. Everyone in the conversation was a special performer. Sometimes it feels like that gets lost. Do you prefer 20 years of "very good/sometimes great" to five years of absurd excellence? With no real criteria, it's just a matter of preference. We all agree on the candidates for the most part. It's how to parse them that becomes contentious.
There's probably another post in all of this below the column chatter at this point!
With a specific sport that involves pure numbers, like marathon running or the 100m dash or powerlifting, I do suppose we have to continuously update "GOAT," unless we're making era adjustments (which could be heavily biased due to a larger % of the population pool not competing in those earlier times). But MMA, boxing, etc. - clearly much harder. Then there's baseball/football/basketball, where the overall and highly visible stats fluctuate depending on playstyle, equipment, and so on, which really seem to break people's brains (but he scored 50 ppg, hit 73 home runs, etc., not to mention new eras might advance new stats which are in turn publicized, such as QBR versus rating, VORP and then WAR, etc.).
I think you had recently referred to the "Era of Machida" sarcastically, but this has been a problem forever with MMA media. I think part of it is that the UFC itself doesn't care about it's own history or that of the sport's at large given Dana's falling out with virtually every fighter who has come through the promotion. The same will, in turn, be true for Conor McGregor one day, which will lead to some amusing conversations should we live to see them in 25 years.
That said, Mahomes is different. The comparisons I've seen made to Tiger Woods or Jordan in the late 80s seem appropriate: you know what you're seeing is different. You're seeing something better than you've perhaps seen anything before in that realm. Both Jordan and Tiger are put opposite historic legends (Russell, Nickalus) who's greatness in pure titles will remain unmatched, and I think Mahomes will to some degree fall victim to this with Brady as well. Everyone knows with Mahomes that his mechanics are not "proper" but that his insane athleticism is able to more than make up for what were considered deficits. At some point, that athleticism will be dinged up and lead to a Tommy John surgery or ACL repair that separates his career into distinct periods of prime and post-prime. But Prime Mahomes, however long should he reign, is the guy I'd choose to lead my football team should I be given a time machine and need the playcaller to win for the survival of myself/family/mankind.
I agree. I said he was the best I've ever seen play quarterback and stand by that. Obviously comparing across eras is difficult. What would Steve Young or Joe Montana, for example, look like in a game where basically no one was allowed to hit them?
Brady was on the best team and had the ice water in his veins. I don't think that should be discounted. But, even in his prime, I think Manning was a more talented quarterback. Because these are team sports, it's easy to get mixed up. I distinctly remember a time Jordan was considered a loser because his teams weren't very good.
He was the same player when he was being venerated. It's just the teams were better.
The thing about the GOAT discussion is that we've decided to incorporate "lengthy tenure" as a necessary component of the prize. I actually had a long argument with Kristina about this right before writing the piece. She doesn't see why Mahomes needs 10 "pretty good" years tagged on to the end of a career to be considered the best. Why not, she asks, consider these guys as they existed at their absolute best?
I admit I am not opposed to that. Sandy Koufax, etc, etc.
Peyton called his own plays, which is sort of like writing your own songs as a musician. If you can manage to be great at both, it's a lot more impressive to some of us than being good at only one. At the same time, the position has changed like you pointed out and the demands are different. Peyton might have lost some of those head to head battles in part because he wasn't having plays called by someone incrementally better. I guess I could bloviate about it more but I'm not an expert and I'm sure to anyone who was this would be beyond amateurish levels of analysis. I am the most casual of casual fans now when it comes to football.
Highest peak vs. Greatest Sustained Run is a legitimate discussion point with being the #1 All Time Great candidate. With Mahomes, I can see the rationale much more clearly than *insert UFC guy here* in part because Mahomes has managed to already win 3 Super Bowls and the inherent challenge of that is far greater than making 3 title defenses given how you can artificially boost someone's record by putting them in bouts where they have clear advantages. Mahomes has had easily the worst of his Super Bowl winning teams around him and still managed wins on the road in Buffalo and Baltimore (just for example).
I think most sports analysis is amateurish to people actually involved in the enterprise. Those purporting to be "serious" often more than most.
I totally agree with you on Mahomes. On some level, these rankings of elite athletes are about minor distinctions. Everyone in the conversation was a special performer. Sometimes it feels like that gets lost. Do you prefer 20 years of "very good/sometimes great" to five years of absurd excellence? With no real criteria, it's just a matter of preference. We all agree on the candidates for the most part. It's how to parse them that becomes contentious.
There's probably another post in all of this below the column chatter at this point!
With a specific sport that involves pure numbers, like marathon running or the 100m dash or powerlifting, I do suppose we have to continuously update "GOAT," unless we're making era adjustments (which could be heavily biased due to a larger % of the population pool not competing in those earlier times). But MMA, boxing, etc. - clearly much harder. Then there's baseball/football/basketball, where the overall and highly visible stats fluctuate depending on playstyle, equipment, and so on, which really seem to break people's brains (but he scored 50 ppg, hit 73 home runs, etc., not to mention new eras might advance new stats which are in turn publicized, such as QBR versus rating, VORP and then WAR, etc.).