Carlton Supporters Club

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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)

I think this discussion is lacking in accurate definitions, which unfortunately doesn't help anyone.

Trying to answer your question, firstly there is a difference between number of slams and number of titles. We need to know what it is we are counting. Secondly, when I refer to other criteria, there could be many : winning percentage, weeks at No1, Olympic medals,  etc. In trying to assess the GOAT, as futile as it is, I don't believe looking at number of Grand Slams is enough.

No Im simply pointing at the scoreboard.

In Tennis thats much less subjective.