Consensus "Greatest of All Time" (GOAT) List
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Like many people you are seriously confusing and conflating "greatness" and "Greatest of All Time". Likewise you are doing the same with "Greatest of All Time" and "Greatest of All Time for Their Era".
"Greatest of All Time" is how your skills compare to everybody in history from every era and really has nothing to do with achievements. It doesn't matter what you achieved in your time, if I have more skills than you did and could have whupped you like a red headed step child then you aren't the "Greatest of All Time", period, end of story.
Lets take the mile run for example. The record in 1855 was 4:28. The current record is 3:43.13. You really think there could be any possible argument for the 1855 guy to be the "Greatest of All Time"? Not a chance. Ludicrous. Beyond silly. It wouldn't matter if he had gone undefeated in 500 races, nobody ever in his era ever got within 30 seconds of his time, and his record stood for 150 years. He still wouldn't be the greatest of all time because the current guys are substantially better than he ever was and would crush him if they raced. Hell, the guy that for the last ten years has been running 4:10's and has finished dead last place in all 500 races he has ever entered is still leap years better and has a stronger argument for "Greatest of All Time" than the 1855 guy.
And so it is in every other sport including pool. The comparison of skill/ability is what matters for "Greatest of All Time", not achievement. Now a good argument might could be made that the 1855 guy was the "Greatest of All Time for his Era" based on his achievements, because achievements is one of the ways that can be used to compare guys within the same era, but zero chance he can logically be considered the "Greatest of All Time" if even one person was ever better than he was.
Sure, there are others like you who conflate and confuse "greatness" with "Greatest of All Time", and "Greatest of All Time" and "Greatest of All Time for Their Era" who argue that the 1855 guy is the "Greatest of All Time" (and similar is done in other sports sometimes too) but they are arguing something completely different and don't even realize it.
I think it would be pretty hard to argue that they would not coincide at least fairly closely. That aside, the former can be attained by having achievements (and/or skills) measured against others within certain eras, and the latter is what has to used to compare everyone across all eras to find the "Greatest of All Time".
You are confusing and conflating "greatness" and "Greatest of All Time". To simplify, one possible measure of "greatness" is how you did against your peers in your era--aka achievement. That isn't the same as "Greatest of All Time" though, yet you want to continue to confuse and conflate the two and treat them as the same thing when they simply aren't remotely close to the same thing. If you are comparing achievements then you are discussing "Greatest of All Time for Their Era".
"Greatest of All Time" is how your skills compare to everybody in history from every era and really has nothing to do with achievements. It doesn't matter what you achieved in your time, if I have more skills than you did and could have whupped you like a red headed step child then you aren't the "Greatest of All Time", period, end of story.
Lets take the mile run for example. The record in 1855 was 4:28. The current record is 3:43.13. You really think there could be any possible argument for the 1855 guy to be the "Greatest of All Time"? Not a chance. Ludicrous. Beyond silly. It wouldn't matter if he had gone undefeated in 500 races, nobody ever in his era ever got within 30 seconds of his time, and his record stood for 150 years. He still wouldn't be the greatest of all time because the current guys are substantially better than he ever was and would crush him if they raced. Hell, the guy that for the last ten years has been running 4:10's and has finished dead last place in all 500 races he has ever entered is still leap years better and has a stronger argument for "Greatest of All Time" than the 1855 guy.
And so it is in every other sport including pool. The comparison of skill/ability is what matters for "Greatest of All Time", not achievement. Now a good argument might could be made that the 1855 guy was the "Greatest of All Time for his Era" based on his achievements, because achievements is one of the ways that can be used to compare guys within the same era, but zero chance he can logically be considered the "Greatest of All Time" if even one person was ever better than he was.
This isn't really true either because there is a lot of luck involved in achievement. Francisco Bustamante is a good example of somebody who was far more skilled in his era than his achievements/titles would suggest. But for the sake of argument let's say your statement is true. It is still only one of the possible measures of their greatness in their era and has absolutely nothing to do with how their skills compare to others from other eras.
They absolutely look at performance, but performance alone, not performance compared to their contemporary peers. Taking the mile run as an example again, there is no question that one of the recent guys is considered the "Greatest of All Time". Now it may not be the current record holder, because maybe he only ran that time one and has never come within 5 seconds of it any other time and instead it is considered to be some other guy that runs mid and high 3:43's every single time, but it certainly isn't the 1855 guy or anybody similar.
Sure, there are others like you who conflate and confuse "greatness" with "Greatest of All Time", and "Greatest of All Time" and "Greatest of All Time for Their Era" who argue that the 1855 guy is the "Greatest of All Time" (and similar is done in other sports sometimes too) but they are arguing something completely different and don't even realize it.
Again, skill/ability are all that matter in the "Greatest of All Time" discussion unless tie breakers are needed. On the other hand, for the "Greatest of All Time for Their Era" discussion, achievement is indeed one of the primary factors.
He has already proven that he can win big events against elite fields. Regardless, he is clearly more skilled that others with bigger resumes and so he has to be ahead of them in the "Greatest of All Time" discussion. Again, if I can beat you, there is zero point zero chance you are the "Greatest of All Time", period.
They are part of the fabric of greatness (in their era). They have nothing to do with the "Greatest of All Time" though as that is something completely different. Stop confusing and conflating the two.
This theory sounds like it could be feasible but I would submit that it rarely if ever happens and that in almost all cases where somebody thinks this is the case it is instead just a case of their having misjudged who would beat who. Even if you believe it can happen or is even common, it is immaterial to this discussion unless you think that it has happened here. If that is the case lay out who you think the top 3 greatest of all time players are and which ones beat which in that circular fashion.
If you don'think it is the case here, I would be interested to hear what examples you can come up that meet that criteria from among the top 3 greatest of all time in any other sport out there. I think it is about as rare as a 3 dollar bill.
Last edited:
Think about it this way. If it is wrong to rank one player higher than another player who beats them (let's say that means has a winning record against them), then the top-ranked player in any ranking must have a winning record against every other player on the list that they have played.
So, take Efren as the example. Efren has a losing record against both Mike Sigel and Nick Varner. This would mean that it would be wrong to rank Efren ahead of either of those two players.
An example from tennis would be Nadal and Federer. Federer is commonly considered the greatest tennis player of all time, despite the fact that his overall record against Nadal is currently 15 wins and 24 losses.
But what I've been saying is to compare skill levels. If I am more skilled than you then you aren't the greatest of all time. Yes, to try to illustrate my point I have also referred to it as "if I can beat you then you aren't the GOAT" but I am talking about a skills comparison. Of course a lesser skilled player can beat or even have a winning record against a more skilled player due to luck or various other reasons.
Look at it this way. If I can consistently run close to but no better than a 3:44 mile, and you can run close to but no better than a 4:28 mile consistently, then here is zero chance you are the "Greatest of All Time". None. Doesn't matter who you have beat. Doesn't matter who I have lost to, including you. You don't have the skills that I do. You aren't the "Greatest of All Time".
How is Cory Deuel not even on the list?
The man changed the rules of professional 9ball with his cut break. All others on the list played within the rules.
The man changed the rules of professional 9ball with his cut break. All others on the list played within the rules.
The suggestion that Wu could beat all of his peers doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Yes, on his best day, he's scary good, but I'll takes Buddy Hall's best day game over Wu seven days a a week and I'll take Mike Sigel and Earl Strickland's best day game over Buddy Hall seven days a week, too.
You have imagined it if you think Wu has schooled or even demonstrated the ability to beat the best with any regularity, and if you think he could do so at some point, that's just potential. He still has to prove it on the glorious green felt.
Yes, he has won a few tough, elite field events, but not enough to prove that he can mass produce the big titles the way more than a dozen on the original list have.
As for your semantics, greatest of all-time and greatest of all time in one's era are exactly the same thing. The only path to greatness is sustained excellence, not periodic genius.
I think it's best to discontinue this debate. Let's just agree that we have different ideas of greatness, and we're both right in our player assessments given the definition each of us uses.
FYI, I added your name and score to the first post.
Here's the current Top 10 (see the first post for the complete list of players and for instructions on how to vote):
Rank - Name - Score
1 - Efren Reyes - 126
2 - Earl Strickland - 67
3 - Shane Van Boening - 64
4 - Mike Sigel - 63
5 - Nick Varner - 61
6 - Alex Pagulayan - 51
7 - Johnny Archer - 42
8 - Francisco Bustamante - 42
9 - Buddy Hall - 41
10 - Wu Chia-ching - 40
Thank you for participating,
Dave
Last edited:
Corey was # 26 on my initial list, which had about 35 before I cut it down to 25. The main goal of this exercise is to come up with a Top 10, Top 5, and Top 1. Corey realistically would not have made the first cut down to the Top 10.
Regards,
Dave
If you want to officially vote, please list scores adding to 5, per the instructions in the first post.
Thanks,
Dave
Figuring out a cool new break that tournament directors and some players hate,
doesn't make someone the greatest pool player of all time.
They changed the rules for Sean Avery too - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw
he'd camp in front of the other team's goalie and harrass him, waving his stick and yelling to distract him.
Nobody thinks "they changed the rules for Sean Avery, that's what a great player he was."
Not that I'm calling soft breaking comparable to something that was clearly unsportsmanlike,
just saying that getting a rule changed doesn't mean someone's great.
Just means they're innovative.
efren 5-best in my era-1965- present
Efren - 2
SVB - 2
Archer - 1
Efren - because he is the best.
Archer - because he influenced me the most when I started playing pool.
SVB - because he's influenced me the most since I've returned to pool
SVB - 2
Archer - 1
Efren - because he is the best.
Archer - because he influenced me the most when I started playing pool.
SVB - because he's influenced me the most since I've returned to pool
What is unsportsmanlike is purposefully using pattern racking when it is prohibited by the rules (even if your opponent or referees do not notice or are not knowledgeable). Corey and others have been known to do this at times. Although, I still give Corey a lot of create for discovering so many racking and breaking "innovations" over the years in both 9-ball and 8-ball. For more info, see:
NV I.2 – 9-ball Side Soft Break, and Corey Deuel Pattern Racking, an excerpt from VENT-I
NV J.3 – 9-Ball Rack Manipulation and Breaking Cheats
8-ball pattern-racking cheat (see the bottom section)
Regards,
Dave
FYI, I added your name and score to the first post.
Here's the current Top 10 (see the first post for the complete list of players and for voting instructions):
Rank - Name - Score
1 - Efren Reyes - 131
2 - Earl Strickland - 67
3 - Shane Van Boening - 64
4 - Mike Sigel - 63
5 - Nick Varner - 61
6 - Alex Pagulayan - 51
7 - Johnny Archer - 42
8 - Francisco Bustamante - 42
9 - Buddy Hall - 41
10 - Wu Chia-ching - 40
Thank you for participating,
Dave
Last edited:
FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.
Here's the current Top 10 (see the first post for the complete list of players and for voting instructions):
Rank - Name - Score
1 - Efren Reyes - 133
2 - Earl Strickland - 67
3 - Shane Van Boening - 66
4 - Mike Sigel - 63
5 - Nick Varner - 61
6 - Alex Pagulayan - 51
7 - Johnny Archer - 43
8 - Francisco Bustamante - 42
9 - Buddy Hall - 41
10 - Wu Chia-ching - 40
Thank you for participating,
Dave
FYI, I added your name and scores to the first post.
Here's the current Top 10 (see the first post for the complete list of players and for voting instructions):
Rank - Name - Score
1 - Efren Reyes - 133
2 - Earl Strickland - 67
3 - Shane Van Boening - 66
4 - Mike Sigel - 63
5 - Nick Varner - 61
6 - Alex Pagulayan - 53
7 - Johnny Archer - 43
8 - Francisco Bustamante - 42
9 - Buddy Hall - 41
10 - Wu Chia-ching - 40
Thank you for participating,
Dave
Right, I was responding specifically to this point, which you mention above:
So, the first point I would make is that, if you want to rank the greatest ever in some sport, I don't think it's reasonable to say that player A cannot be the greatest ever if they lose to (or have a losing record against) player B. That's the original point I made.
If you want to think in terms of skill level, my second point would be that I don't think overall skill level equates to, or can be measured only with respect to, wins and losses against one specific opponent. Again, to use Nadal and Federer as the example, I think it is possible for Federer to have a losing record against Nadal (even 15-24 as it now stands), but to be an overall more skilled tennis player, as would be evidenced by his overall accomplishments as compared to Nadal's.
Since greatness or how good a player is overall in competitions like tennis and pool are not measured so easily and objectively as how fast one can consistently run a mile, the comparisons and rankings are more difficult and more complicated to make (though I still think reasonable comparisons can be drawn in most cases).