Simone Biles

[Moranis]

Another really peculiar hill to die on Mo.

Thread has totally devolved into who is the greatest gymnast ever

I'm merely responding to people with facts.  Sorry you don't like facts

No, I just don't like you incessantly presenting your opinion as facts based on your often warped idea of "logic". You started the whole thing with:

There is no question at all Larisa Latynina is the greatest female gymnast of all time.  It isn't close.

Yet you still feel the need to engage with people asking the question? Could that be perhaps because it's not so clear-cut?

That is my opinion, which followed a rather long post that contained only facts.  You see, you present the facts, and then make a conclusion based on those facts. 

Latynina is the most decorated female Olympian of all time (any sport).  She is second only to Phelps.  She is the only woman to win an All Around Medal at 3 straight Olympics, winning 2 (the first of 2 people to win 2 straight).  She won 6 medals in all 3 Olympics she competed in.  She also had 6 Medals in 2 consecutive World Championships in between those Olympic runs. 

Had she had the opportunity to have a World Championship in 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, and 65 there is no doubt she would have significantly increased her medal count (to the point where she'd have more than Biles by a large margin).  Sure that is an opinion, but it an opinion that is nearly impossible to refute as not true.  And we do know she won 5 gold medals in the 57 European Championship and 2 gold and 2 silver in the 61 E.C., and she won 4 silver and 1 bronze in the 65 E.C..  Now the European Championships aren't exactly the same thing as the World Championship, but during that time-period, they might as well have been since the first non-European to win an Olympic medal of any color was Mary Lou Retton's gold in 1984 (then Shannon Miller in 92, Liu Xuan in 00, since then US has dominated winning the all around in every Olympics starting in 04).  It isn't much different in the World Championships, though Keiko Ikeda of Japan took Bronze in 66, but it wasn't until Kim Zmeskal in 91 that the next non-European took a medal of any color (in 1979 they started doing the WC every 2 years, starting in 93 they did them every non-Olympic year - so there were double the WC to Olympics and it still didn't matter). 

When you increase the opportunity for medals, someone winning more medals because of that fact shouldn't be rewarded when comparing to the generation that didn't have the increased opportunity for medals.

[CptZoogs]

Another really peculiar hill to die on Mo.

Thread has totally devolved into who is the greatest gymnast ever

I'm merely responding to people with facts.  Sorry you don't like facts

No, I just don't like you incessantly presenting your opinion as facts based on your often warped idea of "logic". You started the whole thing with:

There is no question at all Larisa Latynina is the greatest female gymnast of all time.  It isn't close.

Yet you still feel the need to engage with people asking the question? Could that be perhaps because it's not so clear-cut?

That is my opinion, which followed a rather long post that contained only facts.  You see, you present the facts, and then make a conclusion based on those facts. 

Latynina is the most decorated female Olympian of all time (any sport).  She is second only to Phelps.  She is the only woman to win an All Around Medal at 3 straight Olympics, winning 2 (the first of 2 people to win 2 straight).  She won 6 medals in all 3 Olympics she competed in.  She also had 6 Medals in 2 consecutive World Championships in between those Olympic runs. 

Had she had the opportunity to have a World Championship in 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, and 65 there is no doubt she would have significantly increased her medal count (to the point where she'd have more than Biles by a large margin).  Sure that is an opinion, but it an opinion that is nearly impossible to refute as not true.  And we do know she won 5 gold medals in the 57 European Championship and 2 gold and 2 silver in the 61 E.C., and she won 4 silver and 1 bronze in the 65 E.C..  Now the European Championships aren't exactly the same thing as the World Championship, but during that time-period, they might as well have been since the first non-European to win an Olympic medal of any color was Mary Lou Retton's gold in 1984 (then Shannon Miller in 92, Liu Xuan in 00, since then US has dominated winning the all around in every Olympics starting in 04).  It isn't much different in the World Championships, though Keiko Ikeda of Japan took Bronze in 66, but it wasn't until Kim Zmeskal in 91 that the next non-European took a medal of any color (in 1979 they started doing the WC every 2 years, starting in 93 they did them every non-Olympic year - so there were double the WC to Olympics and it still didn't matter). 

When you increase the opportunity for medals, someone winning more medals because of that fact shouldn't be rewarded when comparing to the generation that didn't have the increased opportunity for medals.

It is like you aren't even paying attention to the argument you are making.  You prop up a hypothetical 13 year career with interpolated projections on medal counts against an actual 6 career that is still in progress and lean on medal counts as your primary metric.  I will grant that interpolated predictions are more reliable than forecasted predictions, but the fact remains that every athletic event comes with uncertainty.  We had this discussion in the NBA season thread about the Nets and whether there was a need to actually play the games.  Time will tell what Biles will do with the rest of her career, but at this point her resume of actual recorded results is more than on par with LL.  We could play the hypothetical game all day long.  What if SB was born a year earlier?  What if she didn't lose a year to Covid?  WHat if she wasn't sexually assaulted by a man who she trusted to moniter her health and well-being?  What if LL had to compete in an era that focused on power and athleticism more than mere artisitc presentation?  You can't tell me that if LL had to perform the routines that gymnasts do today, she would have a 13 year career of sustained medal contention.  No way in H, E, double hockey sticks.  These men and women are in some ways a victim of their own skill and talent.  They make the remarkable and dangerous seem routine and mundane. 

You may decide to disagree with this, but if anyone else is still on the fence, let's look at the video evidence.

LL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntx0FMYLiqE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCeHaTO3XCo

SB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg8ewr5ovQk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fdp8SVOSF4

These women were not cometing in the same sport.  I don't take anything away from LL's career.  That was the nature of the sport at the time.  However, they competed in a comparable amount of world events (34 for LL, 33 for SB), had comparable medal rates (94.1% for LL and 93.9% for SB) and it is no contest in gold rates (52.9% for LL and 69.7% for SB).

[Ogaju]

Another really peculiar hill to die on Mo.

Thread has totally devolved into who is the greatest gymnast ever

I'm merely responding to people with facts.  Sorry you don't like facts

No, I just don't like you incessantly presenting your opinion as facts based on your often warped idea of "logic". You started the whole thing with:

There is no question at all Larisa Latynina is the greatest female gymnast of all time.  It isn't close.

Yet you still feel the need to engage with people asking the question? Could that be perhaps because it's not so clear-cut?

That is my opinion, which followed a rather long post that contained only facts.  You see, you present the facts, and then make a conclusion based on those facts. 

Latynina is the most decorated female Olympian of all time (any sport).  She is second only to Phelps.  She is the only woman to win an All Around Medal at 3 straight Olympics, winning 2 (the first of 2 people to win 2 straight).  She won 6 medals in all 3 Olympics she competed in.  She also had 6 Medals in 2 consecutive World Championships in between those Olympic runs. 

Had she had the opportunity to have a World Championship in 55, 57, 59, 61, 63, and 65 there is no doubt she would have significantly increased her medal count (to the point where she'd have more than Biles by a large margin).  Sure that is an opinion, but it an opinion that is nearly impossible to refute as not true.  And we do know she won 5 gold medals in the 57 European Championship and 2 gold and 2 silver in the 61 E.C., and she won 4 silver and 1 bronze in the 65 E.C..  Now the European Championships aren't exactly the same thing as the World Championship, but during that time-period, they might as well have been since the first non-European to win an Olympic medal of any color was Mary Lou Retton's gold in 1984 (then Shannon Miller in 92, Liu Xuan in 00, since then US has dominated winning the all around in every Olympics starting in 04).  It isn't much different in the World Championships, though Keiko Ikeda of Japan took Bronze in 66, but it wasn't until Kim Zmeskal in 91 that the next non-European took a medal of any color (in 1979 they started doing the WC every 2 years, starting in 93 they did them every non-Olympic year - so there were double the WC to Olympics and it still didn't matter). 

When you increase the opportunity for medals, someone winning more medals because of that fact shouldn't be rewarded when comparing to the generation that didn't have the increased opportunity for medals.

It is like you aren't even paying attention to the argument you are making.  You prop up a hypothetical 13 year career with interpolated projections on medal counts against an actual 6 career that is still in progress and lean on medal counts as your primary metric.  I will grant that interpolated predictions are more reliable than forecasted predictions, but the fact remains that every athletic event comes with uncertainty.  We had this discussion in the NBA season thread about the Nets and whether there was a need to actually play the games.  Time will tell what Biles will do with the rest of her career, but at this point her resume of actual recorded results is more than on par with LL.  We could play the hypothetical game all day long.  What if SB was born a year earlier?  What if she didn't lose a year to Covid?  WHat if she wasn't sexually assaulted by a man who she trusted to moniter her health and well-being?  What if LL had to compete in an era that focused on power and athleticism more than mere artisitc presentation?  You can't tell me that if LL had to perform the routines that gymnasts do today, she would have a 13 year career of sustained medal contention.  No way in H, E, double hockey sticks.  These men and women are in some ways a victim of their own skill and talent.  They make the remarkable and dangerous seem routine and mundane. 

You may decide to disagree with this, but if anyone else is still on the fence, let's look at the video evidence.

LL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntx0FMYLiqE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCeHaTO3XCo

SB:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg8ewr5ovQk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fdp8SVOSF4

These women were not cometing in the same sport.  I don't take anything away from LL's career.  That was the nature of the sport at the time.  However, they competed in a comparable amount of world events (34 for LL, 33 for SB), had comparable medal rates (94.1% for LL and 93.9% for SB) and it is no contest in gold rates (52.9% for LL and 69.7% for SB).

I hate when posts like this are not punctuated with QED.

Why are we even having this conversation? Who started it? Whoever did should apologize to Simone Biles.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Exactly. The eye test.

Babe Ruth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-4Z2rMcFo8

Barry Bonds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRuLxYWqPT4

One was much more impressive. It's clear.

[jambr380]

Why are we even having this conversation? Who started it? Whoever did should apologize to Simone Biles.

What? Moranis is the one who has more than proven his point. Before this argument, I was pretty sure Latynina was the best gymnast ever. But now, I am more than certain this is the case.

Latynina > Biles...not even close. Thanks Moranis!

[Ogaju]

Why are we even having this conversation? Who started it? Whoever did should apologize to Simone Biles.

What? Moranis is the one who has more than proven his point. Before this argument, I was pretty sure Latynina was the best gymnast ever. But now, I am more than certain this is the case.

Latynina > Biles...not even close. Thanks Moranis!

Stop comparing checkers to chess or ballet to gymnastics or hearsay to video evidence.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Why are we even having this conversation? Who started it? Whoever did should apologize to Simone Biles.

What? Moranis is the one who has more than proven his point. Before this argument, I was pretty sure Latynina was the best gymnast ever. But now, I am more than certain this is the case.

Latynina > Biles...not even close. Thanks Moranis!

Stop comparing checkers to chess or ballet to gymnastics or hearsay to video evidence.

TP and agree.

We can't look at the stats because there exists an uneven playing field. In 1950, there were 2.5 billion people on earth. That number has more than tripled. So how should we account for this if we actually want to compare?

What about advances in technology? Why should the current day athlete be discounted for his/her time in the gym and eating avocado ice cream when guys like Ruth waddled/rolled around the bases?

If we look at the two videos of SB and LL, is it clear that one is better than the other?

[Celtics4ever]

One was much more impressive. It's clear.

Definitely, Ruth , no PEDS

[Moranis]

Why are we even having this conversation? Who started it? Whoever did should apologize to Simone Biles.

What? Moranis is the one who has more than proven his point. Before this argument, I was pretty sure Latynina was the best gymnast ever. But now, I am more than certain this is the case.

Latynina > Biles...not even close. Thanks Moranis!

Stop comparing checkers to chess or ballet to gymnastics or hearsay to video evidence.

TP and agree.

We can't look at the stats because there exists an uneven playing field. In 1950, there were 2.5 billion people on earth. That number has more than tripled. So how should we account for this if we actually want to compare?

What about advances in technology? Why should the current day athlete be discounted for his/her time in the gym and eating avocado ice cream when guys like Ruth waddled/rolled around the bases?

If we look at the two videos of SB and LL, is it clear that one is better than the other?

So we should just disregard what the old guys did.  Is Jim Thorpe not a great athlete because he doesn't measure up to the modern athlete? 

Do the Celtics championships in the 60's not count because there were only 8 or 9 teams and the C's only had to win 8 playoff games to win the title most of those years?  I guess we should just put an * by them since they clearly don't count.

You can't do what you are doing or there is no point in even keeping score or records.  I mean Lebron is clearly a more gifted athlete than Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Wilt, etc. so why isn't he the unquestioned greatest of all time?  If being a better athlete is how we determine those things, then there is no debate. 

Tom Brady is clearly not the best athlete at his position so he can't be the greatest QB ever.  Has to be Mahomes, Rodgers, or Lamar Jackson.  I mean since being a better athlete makes you greater.

I mean that is silly when you start translating it to other things.

[nickagneta]

What I find funny is that people are arguing about the greatest woman gymnastic athlete ever and people are bringing up the merits of an athlete they clearly never saw or have even seen video of, in a sport they most likely have never watched or followed, to compare them to modern era gymnastic athletes that they probably don't follow in a sport they probably don't follow.

I mean, in the top four professional leagues people can argue about the greatest of those sports, but because every great player won titles, the argument comes down to context and knowledge of that context.

Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player ever but none of us have ever seen him play. But the context is the Babe was hitting more HRs than most teams of that era and by a lot. He was a statistical tour de force, often lapping the league and some teams all by himself. Oh, and he was the best pitcher of his era when pitching, too. Ruth held statistical records that lasted decades both hitting and pitching. Heck, until Clemens came around in the mid 80's, Ruth was considered the best pitcher in Red Sox history and he was traded to the Yankees in 1919.

Bill Russell might be the greatest ever but it's not just his titles that make that argument. It's the context. He revolutionized how to play defense in the post, being the best defensive player in the league by a very wide margin for almost his entire career. As a center he also had great dribbling and passing skills and that was unheard of in that era. He is one of the three best rebounders in the game ever alongside Wilt and Rodman. Then there is the BBIQ that was off the charts. Red called him one of the greatest basketball minds ever.

So if you are arguing why some woman gymnastic athlete from the 50's and 60's is the greatest ever, give some context instead of just throwing out championships won stats.

What were her strengths? What events did she excel at? How complex were the things she did compared to what modern athletes are doing? What were the complexities of that era of gymnastics versus today's and how does that affect calling whomever the best ever in that sport?

Anyone can Google and come up with stats, but explain the context as to why, not just spout off stats you can find anywhere. What made her the best ever? Explain.

I will plainly admit, I know about as much about gymnastics as I do translating ancient Sumerian texts, so I have no dog in this fight, but if you're going to argue about this, please explain more to me than just # of titles.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

Why are we even having this conversation? Who started it? Whoever did should apologize to Simone Biles.

What? Moranis is the one who has more than proven his point. Before this argument, I was pretty sure Latynina was the best gymnast ever. But now, I am more than certain this is the case.

Latynina > Biles...not even close. Thanks Moranis!

Stop comparing checkers to chess or ballet to gymnastics or hearsay to video evidence.

TP and agree.

We can't look at the stats because there exists an uneven playing field. In 1950, there were 2.5 billion people on earth. That number has more than tripled. So how should we account for this if we actually want to compare?

What about advances in technology? Why should the current day athlete be discounted for his/her time in the gym and eating avocado ice cream when guys like Ruth waddled/rolled around the bases?

If we look at the two videos of SB and LL, is it clear that one is better than the other?

So we should just disregard what the old guys did.  Is Jim Thorpe not a great athlete because he doesn't measure up to the modern athlete?

Do the Celtics championships in the 60's not count because there were only 8 or 9 teams and the C's only had to win 8 playoff games to win the title most of those years?  I guess we should just put an * by them since they clearly don't count.

You can't do what you are doing or there is no point in even keeping score or records.  I mean Lebron is clearly a more gifted athlete than Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Wilt, etc. so why isn't he the unquestioned greatest of all time?  If being a better athlete is how we determine those things, then there is no debate. 

Tom Brady is clearly not the best athlete at his position so he can't be the greatest QB ever.  Has to be Mahomes, Rodgers, or Lamar Jackson.  I mean since being a better athlete makes you greater.

I mean that is silly when you start translating it to other things.

You can certainly compare them, as you can compare anything else. I'm stating that the comparison becomes less accurate as the time gap expands.

In order to compare stats from different generations, there's a lot of subjective analysis. We can argue all day long, but no one is going to have the "right" answer just because they googled statistics. One's opinion is that LL is better than SB because of stats (same with Babe Ruth). Stats help paint a picture, but they're just one component.

[Roy H.]

What I find funny is that people are arguing about the greatest woman gymnastic athlete ever and people are bringing up the merits of an athlete they clearly never saw or have even seen video of, in a sport they most likely have never watched or followed, to compare them to modern era gymnastic athletes that they probably don't follow in a sport they probably don't follow.

I don’t mean to single you out, nick, but this type of argument has been pretty prevalent on the blog lately.  People are making assumptions about what others do and do not know. We saw that in the Cleveland Guardians thread, we’ve seen it several times here, etc.

I’m not a gymnastics guru, but I’ve followed the sport since high school.  One of my girlfriends I was captain of the gymnastics team, and I volunteered to help out.  I was a quasi-manager on the team, helping set up equipment, going to practices, videotaping meets, etc.  That year we won a state championship, coached by a former Polish Olympian.

I’ve followed Olympic gymnastics since about the same time.  Shannon Miller was the big American name at that time.  One of the cooler experiences at law school was getting to know her a little bit when she was a 1L.

I think that a lot of us probably have a working knowledge of the biggest names in the sport and the dominant Teams over the years.  That said, the sport has certainly evolved over the years, from one that valued grace and precision the one that is much more power oriented.  A lot of people don’t know that the sports official title is “artistic gymnastics”.  Today, there’s less emphasis on the artistry, although it’s still there somewhat in some of the required elements.

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

What I find funny is that people are arguing about the greatest woman gymnastic athlete ever and people are bringing up the merits of an athlete they clearly never saw or have even seen video of, in a sport they most likely have never watched or followed, to compare them to modern era gymnastic athletes that they probably don't follow in a sport they probably don't follow.

I don’t mean to single you out, nick, but this type of argument has been pretty prevalent on the blog lately.  People are making assumptions about what others do and do not know. We saw that in the Cleveland Guardians thread, we’ve seen it several times here, etc.

I’m not a gymnastics guru, but I’ve followed the sport since high school.  One of my girlfriends I was captain of the gymnastics team, and I volunteered to help out.  I was a quasi-manager on the team, helping set up equipment, going to practices, videotaping meets, etc.  That year we won a state championship, coached by a former Polish Olympian.

I’ve followed Olympic gymnastics since about the same time.  Shannon Miller was the big American name at that time.  One of the cooler experiences at law school was getting to know her a little bit when she was a 1L.

I think that a lot of us probably have a working knowledge of the biggest names in the sport and the dominant Teams over the years.  That said, the sport has certainly evolved over the years, from one that valued grace and precision the one that is much more power oriented.  A lot of people don’t know that the sports official title is “artistic gymnastics”.  Today, there’s less emphasis on the artistry, although it’s still there somewhat in some of the required elements.

I was definitely making these assumptions after reading the level of discourse.

For instance, there was little to no discussion of Biles' inability to land 2.5 rotations on the vault. I didn't read anything about Yurchenkos, Tsukaharas, or other vault maneuvers.

Instead, we read about medal counts, easily found on wikipedia.

[Roy H.]

What I find funny is that people are arguing about the greatest woman gymnastic athlete ever and people are bringing up the merits of an athlete they clearly never saw or have even seen video of, in a sport they most likely have never watched or followed, to compare them to modern era gymnastic athletes that they probably don't follow in a sport they probably don't follow.

I don’t mean to single you out, nick, but this type of argument has been pretty prevalent on the blog lately.  People are making assumptions about what others do and do not know. We saw that in the Cleveland Guardians thread, we’ve seen it several times here, etc.

I’m not a gymnastics guru, but I’ve followed the sport since high school.  One of my girlfriends I was captain of the gymnastics team, and I volunteered to help out.  I was a quasi-manager on the team, helping set up equipment, going to practices, videotaping meets, etc.  That year we won a state championship, coached by a former Polish Olympian.

I’ve followed Olympic gymnastics since about the same time.  Shannon Miller was the big American name at that time.  One of the cooler experiences at law school was getting to know her a little bit when she was a 1L.

I think that a lot of us probably have a working knowledge of the biggest names in the sport and the dominant Teams over the years.  That said, the sport has certainly evolved over the years, from one that valued grace and precision the one that is much more power oriented.  A lot of people don’t know that the sports official title is “artistic gymnastics”.  Today, there’s less emphasis on the artistry, although it’s still there somewhat in some of the required elements.

I was definitely making these assumptions after reading the level of discourse.

For instance, there was little to no discussion of Biles' inability to land 2.5 rotations on the vault. I didn't read anything about Yurchenkos, Tsukaharas, or other vault maneuvers.

Instead, we read about medal counts, easily found on wikipedia.

Do you disagree that we generally put a lot of weight on both championships and statistical dominance?  It’s really the only way you can compare any sport across eras.

Sticking with gymnastics, look at somebody like Nadia Comăneci.  She was an absolute phenom, Becoming the first woman to ever score a perfect 10 and then doing it over and over and over again in Olympic competition.

And yet, transport her into this era without any adjustments, and she wouldn’t make the US Olympic team.

Do we just ignore the benchmarks of our past?  If Evan Mobley was transported to 1960, he’d probably dominate Bill Russell.  A guy like Evan Fournier would be considered to be the best wing of his era.  Do we just ignore context and peers?

[MarcusSmartFanClub]

What I find funny is that people are arguing about the greatest woman gymnastic athlete ever and people are bringing up the merits of an athlete they clearly never saw or have even seen video of, in a sport they most likely have never watched or followed, to compare them to modern era gymnastic athletes that they probably don't follow in a sport they probably don't follow.

I don’t mean to single you out, nick, but this type of argument has been pretty prevalent on the blog lately.  People are making assumptions about what others do and do not know. We saw that in the Cleveland Guardians thread, we’ve seen it several times here, etc.

I’m not a gymnastics guru, but I’ve followed the sport since high school.  One of my girlfriends I was captain of the gymnastics team, and I volunteered to help out.  I was a quasi-manager on the team, helping set up equipment, going to practices, videotaping meets, etc.  That year we won a state championship, coached by a former Polish Olympian.

I’ve followed Olympic gymnastics since about the same time.  Shannon Miller was the big American name at that time.  One of the cooler experiences at law school was getting to know her a little bit when she was a 1L.

I think that a lot of us probably have a working knowledge of the biggest names in the sport and the dominant Teams over the years.  That said, the sport has certainly evolved over the years, from one that valued grace and precision the one that is much more power oriented.  A lot of people don’t know that the sports official title is “artistic gymnastics”.  Today, there’s less emphasis on the artistry, although it’s still there somewhat in some of the required elements.

I was definitely making these assumptions after reading the level of discourse.

For instance, there was little to no discussion of Biles' inability to land 2.5 rotations on the vault. I didn't read anything about Yurchenkos, Tsukaharas, or other vault maneuvers.

Instead, we read about medal counts, easily found on wikipedia.

Do you disagree that we generally put a lot of weight on both championships and statistical dominance?  It’s really the only way you can compare any sport across eras.

Sticking with gymnastics, look at somebody like Nadia Comăneci.  She was an absolute phenom, Becoming the first woman to ever score a perfect 10 and then doing it over and over and over again in Olympic competition.

And yet, transport her into this era without any adjustments, and she wouldn’t make the US Olympic team.

Do we just ignore the benchmarks of our past?  If Evan Mobley was transported to 1960, he’d probably dominate Bill Russell.  A guy like Evan Fournier would be considered to be the best wing of his era.  Do we just ignore context and peers?

I think we use whatever we have at our disposal to help make our points. If you're a Celtics (or Yankees) fan, you look at the historic championships. Many can't stand the current iteration of the NBA, and think Bill Russell/Larry Bird were the greatest of all time.

If you're a GSW fan, you might be inclined to favor the newer version of the sport.

I guess we favor those pieces of evidence that backup our world view. I prefer to use my eyes, but data isn't a bad way to judge either. I don't think that one method of analysis trumps everything else, and I don't think we will have "clear" favorites with such subjectivity.

I think we can fool ourselves into thinking that statistics shed a clear picture, considering how many adjustments are needed to compare stats from one generation to another.