Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitchface
"People" as a collective are morons and not an authority to be appealed to. I think Nadal is better than Federer and even I would never suggest an exercise like this at all meaningful. Between this, and the "wikipedia length" argument you made, you seem to have a pretty weird outlook on how to evaluate sports.
you can't have a discussion about the goat without general acknowledgement. if nobody acknowledged federer as the goat, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
if everybody acknowledged federer as the goat, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
so while "people" as a collective are morons, "they" most certainly have a significant impact on the acceptance of any given goat discussion. to not acknowledge that is asinine.
further, like it or not, you're a "person" in nadal's camp just as much as i'm a "person" in fed's camp.
re: wiki, i agree it's faulty, but moreso due to the length of federer's career than as an automatic unsuitable argument. it would be far more relevant to look at "fed's wiki at 25" than compare "fed's wiki at 29 vs. nadal's wiki at 25"... so yes, clearly that was my mistake.
finally, we're not "evaluating sports" here. we're discussion who, in a given sport, is the goat. we're evaluating accomplishments and overall acceptance of a specific term applied to a player.