Do you think that the G.O.A.T debate is subjective?

First of all,is there really the greatest of all time?

The answer is probably no.The game hasn't been the same and with the same conditions,advantages and disadvantages etc.Each great player was great in his time.It's hard to compare players who played in far more different conditions,e.g George Mikan vs Pau Gasol.We don't know how both players would be if they switch.It's easy to say that Mikan will suck and Gasol put 30/30/8 all the time,when Gasol's greatest strength could be his biggest weaknesses.I mean the play back in the 50's was fast,he would put of course better number,however is he tough enough to survive the rough style.Back then,there were no easy calls and players often played with something broken.Mikan could benifit from the modern advantages to became a good basketball player and the fact that superstars,get some easy calls these days


So comparing players from different eras is really hard,but when they had similarities with each other,well it's not.The game tempo was different and often it's a factor in judging someone's statistics.The success is dependable as well.If some player has put excellent numbers but his team fails in the playoffs the blame could go to either of them.It's perhaps the fact that the player hasn't done a good job of playing his hearts out,or his team mates failed to support when needed.There are too many factors


Then,there's the comparison between players from different positions,e.g Kareem Abdul Jabbar vs Magic Johnson...or Shaquille O'Neal vs LeBron James and so on.They are mostly judged by their stats,success,resume...but what's the key factor to say,that for example Kareem is better than Magic and vice versa. Explain on what are the key factors in this comparison

Based on what do you compare these players in the G.O.A.T debate?If you ask me,i think it really depends on what is your main argument.Do you have a main argument e.g rings,stats,career resume etc or you just simply include all of those,while put in all-around game,skill set,impact on the game,was that player revolutionary etc?


The decades in the players play are somewhat different from each other.Players from the 50's to the mid 70's had little more fast tempo compared to the 90's,00's..and if,that player was great,he could have posted some nice stats.Players from these days,have the media as their advantage.If he's good and putting close numbers,it's safer to say that most of the today's superstar will be more known around the world then some legends before color television etc.

The guys of the 80's,90's and 00's played incredible basketball,who knows how would have their stats looked in much more faster tempo.Way back PGs didn't have this kind of freedom in counting the assists etc.Overall,there are too many factors

BQ1:Do you think some of the superstars aren't fully recognized for their abilities?

BQ2:The Alpha dog thing?Do you think there's a need to let this be a factor in this debates

Of course it is. But you can still objectively decide which player you think was more skilled and/or talented.

Dominance can sort of be gauged as well, but yes the argument always has some subjective elements to it.

Almost every argument in existence is subjective period.

There is no one G.O.A.T

Everyone just had there game

Taking over the game:
Kobe
Wilt

Dominance:
shaq
Hakeem

All around:
Micheal jordan
Big 0

Defence minded:
Bill russell
Dennice rodman.


But if you start this anywhere Jordan is the winner,just cause he is known as the best,its a crime to say its not.

Yes it's subjective.

Biggest reason to me is based on positions of players. Duh, Shaq can manhandle Michael Jordan in the low post, but Michael Jordan can whoop Shaq in the mid range game and in court vision....

Absolutely it's subjective.

There wouldn't be debates and arguments if it wasn't.

I hate the term G.O.A.T.

Russell, Wilt, Big O, Jordan, Bird, Dr. J, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan...

Every generation has a great player, right now it's LeBron. Hands down the most effective player on offense. Mostly on offense. Though he has yet to win a ring. He's a shinning example of the next greatest player.

I think the problem is that people need to proclaim someone as the greatest.

Maybe it's because I've seen so many through the years of watching basketball that I don't care... because I don't.

I love watching the game. That's were I stand. I like seeing people develop. I like seeing the obstacles that have to overcome to get to the championship.

Or never get a ring.

This is the story of every season. That is the story of every superstars career.

I see John Stockton and I never think twice about his place in history. Same goes with George Gervin... or Patrick Ewing.... or Pete Maravich... or Dominique Wilkins... or Dirk Nowitzki...

They are great players regardless, who had limited talent around them... in some cases no talent. Or talent that help them... Like Duncan and Kobe and Jordan.

G.O.A.T. is a terrible phrase... it's a cheap term. It involves no research and the support of too many people that haven't watched enough of basketball to know the difference between falling short and excelling in extreme scrutiny and doubt.

Nice one Nick..