My example is good, you are much too quick to dismiss it. Take the Olympics for example. They all train with the objective of getting the gold. The 100-meter Olympic final is 1 race per 4 years. While the main purpose is not to post a time, the better time will win it.
This makes no sense. You just agreed that winning matters not time.
Now, it's not possible to compare one year from another without being subjective. The 2008 runner-up could very well have beaten the 2004 gold medalist if both athlete had competed in the same race. We'll never know.
He did not win. You can't compare the times because you do not know if the time would be different if pushed.
As you said, you never know, so you must conclude that the actual real life result is what you must go with.
Different era, different circumstance. The 2008 runner wasn’t part of the 2004 race. You cannot evaluate him based on something he wasn't a part of.
It becomes a subjective assessment.
It becomes a subjective assessment if you try to compare them but they shouldn't be compared.
The objective was to win. One did and one did not.
No, it's not. It's your opinion, based on your definition of the term better.
No, its FACT based upon my definition of better.
I agree on your definition of the term 'better' for a given season. But I do not agree with it for comparing teams from different seasons, because it's flawed. Here's the thing : How can you be so sure that the level of competition on any given year is equal ?
I have never attempted to discuss what team would beat what team.
The discussion was which team is better. The team only lives in its moment. It won or did not. A team isn't better because it failed but can make an excuse.
The 2001 Patriots achieved their goal.
The 2007 Patriots did not.
Therefore the 2001 Patriots were a better team.
Who would win if they played is irrevelant.
A team exists for a season and either does or does not accomplish its goal. The ones that do, by definition were better than the ones that did not.
Unless you want to introduce a definition of better that conflicts with the fact that the purpose that the team exists is to win.
Let me put it this way.
If you could prove to me beyond any doubt that the 2007 Patriots would beat the 2001 Patriots, that would not make them a better team.
That team has a result attached to it, and no amount of conversation or debate is going to change that result.
You'll agree with me that not all 45 Super Bowl champions are the same.
They are the same in the regard of being the only 45 that achieved the goal that every team ever existed to strive for.
Some on these teams are better than others. If we push this idea a little further, we could very well come to the conclusion that some runner-up might have won a Championship on another year.
I disagree because winning a Championship on the field separates them.
Being the 'best' team means achieving the singular goal of every team.
Let me put it another way. If you could convince me that the 2007 Patriots would have beaten the 2007 Giants 99 times out of a hundred, I still say the Giants were a better team.
Why?
Because they existed for the purpose of winning that Championship, and they did. They had one and only one opportunity. Those 53 players were the best TEAM in the timeframe and under the parameters that they existed.
That's why I would say that the 2007 Patriots were better than the 1995 Cowboys. It's totally subjective, but it cannot be any other way because the 2007 Patriots did not participate in the 1995 season. Why do I think the 2007 Patriots are better ? Because I think the level of competition in 1995 was lesser than in 2007.
You seem to be arguing that better players equal better team. That is the central point where I disagree.
A TEAM is what they DO, not how they are percieved or would have done under other circumstances.
Every team that has ever existed started the season even with an equal chance of winning the SB, and with the same singular goal.
Only the ones that achieved it can be considered among the best, because failing to achieve your purpose in life is failing.
Yes they get one chance and there are many factors that could make the best talent not be the best team, but that doesn't change the reality of it.
It comes back to the race analogy. The 2007 Pats and 1995 Cowboys were not part of the same race. Cowboys won in 1995, and they were the better team from 1995. Doesn't mean that if they had raced in 2007, they would have beaten the Patriots. As such, I wouldn't call them the better team.
The 1995 Cowboys did not exist in 2007, so that is irrelevant. Each group had one and only 1 shot. One succeeded, one failed. One was a better team that the other.
I'm just not sure how you can consider an organization(team) that fails to achieve its goal to be a better organziation than one that does.
Do you think the 53 players on the 2007 Patriots would trade the right to be considered better than the 1995 Cowboys by you, for having completed the job and won the ring?
Doesnt that answer the question?
But the OP is asking just that.
If the analysis stops at who won a Championship and who didn't, then there's no discussion....so why start a thread. Just play along...
He is asking who is a better team, not who would win if they played against each other. You are changing the question to fit the side of the argument you wish to be on.
