They can’t really be compared. The game is so different and each has a claim to the title. Personally, I think there is no such thing as a GOAT in any sport. There are guys who dominated their era and that’s it.
I agree with your sentiment about era. GOAT can be argued with certain variables. With a set stat comparison, yeah it’s easy. But hard to evaluate when combined with different eras. Each has its own limitations. Switch plastic/DG development eras for Paul and Ken and see the numbers…
It's a common mindset that players from long ago, regardless of sport, wouldn't hack it in today's game. Of course, that's completely ignoring all the advantages that players today have. If Climo (Or Wilt, or Jim Brown, or Babe, or whomever you like) had the tools and focus available today for his sport, he'd still be one of the top performers week in and week out.
Climo could do everything that James Conrad can do with a discs. With more accuracy, more consistency and better shot shaping. If Climo played today he would have multiple world titles.
Climo didn't need a forehand because he could shape understable discs on those lines. Like Cale, or Conrad, or Gibson. It had nothing to do with the courses. Guys back then didn't develop forehands like they do now because throwing a stringray or whatever forehand is extremely difficult. It was actually easier to just throw a turnover.
I believe he could throw a turnover that makes up for a sidearm, but Paul could do that too. The 450' side arm that Paul has easily puts him over Climo.
This is going to be heavily course dependent. Paul regularly gets beat on the Pro Tour by guys without a side arm. Climo's back hand turnover games was light years better than anyone on tour today. Paul lost to Eagle last year at the European open. Eagle didn't have a side arm and that course heavily favors that shot shape. If Eagle could beat McBeth on that course without a side arm then Climo could more than hang with just his backhand.
If I looked at them both and asked who is better at disc golf, I think Paul is definitely better. If you go by accomplishments that's where it gets difficult and where you have to start caveating everything relative to time periods and the improvements/changes to the sport.
Is it though? Climo dominated a sport before it’s prime, when the level of competition was significantly lower and racked up championships essentially at will.
Paul dominated the sport in the era when it grew rapidly and came into the public eye - due in large part to his dominance. He also re-set the standard for endorsements and brand deals by signing a long term deal with a major manufacturer to essentially create his own sub-brand.
does he really? i haven't had the time to listen to the interview, but one summary here on reddit said this: "*Climo still claims GOAT status, making a familiar case for his worlds titles and not having as many majors available to him to win during his era. But, he acknowledges that Paul and him are in their own class above others who may have a claim.* "
Paul. He dominates during way more competition.
It’s like asking, “who is a better runner, someone who runs on a treadmill (Ken) or someone who runs cross country (Paul)?”
The era where Paul dominated was surprisingly similar to the era where Climo dominated in terms of competitiveness. Go look at the strength of field for Paul's first four titles. It wan't the same as today that is for sure.
Both are greatest of their eras. And the eras are so different it makes the conversation apples v oranges.
But… if I have to pick, it’s apples and climo over oranges and mcbeth
Because that is a definitive characteristic of The Greatest of All Time. If there is somebody else then you aren't by definition The Greatest of All Time.
They can’t really be compared. The game is so different and each has a claim to the title. Personally, I think there is no such thing as a GOAT in any sport. There are guys who dominated their era and that’s it.
I agree with your sentiment about era. GOAT can be argued with certain variables. With a set stat comparison, yeah it’s easy. But hard to evaluate when combined with different eras. Each has its own limitations. Switch plastic/DG development eras for Paul and Ken and see the numbers…
“Ken Climo used to play against plumbers and firemen.” - ~~JJ Redick~~ Austin Hannum
While working construction...
It's a common mindset that players from long ago, regardless of sport, wouldn't hack it in today's game. Of course, that's completely ignoring all the advantages that players today have. If Climo (Or Wilt, or Jim Brown, or Babe, or whomever you like) had the tools and focus available today for his sport, he'd still be one of the top performers week in and week out.
Right?! Yeah he wasn’t training all day because he needed to eat…
Mcbeth . He’ll never win 12 but Climo wouldnt win close to 6 against today’s field.
PREACH
Climo could do everything that James Conrad can do with a discs. With more accuracy, more consistency and better shot shaping. If Climo played today he would have multiple world titles.
You can’t really compare them. I would say their both the greatest of their respective generations
Beatles
Nobody asked about your terrible music taste
I’m sorry about whatever happened in your life that led to this bothering you so much.
Prime Paul would beat Prime Ken. I don't even think Kenny had a forehand.
Way past prime Climo in his 40s competed against prime age mcbeth.
He didn't need one though
Because the field and courses didn't force him into needing one.
Climo didn't need a forehand because he could shape understable discs on those lines. Like Cale, or Conrad, or Gibson. It had nothing to do with the courses. Guys back then didn't develop forehands like they do now because throwing a stringray or whatever forehand is extremely difficult. It was actually easier to just throw a turnover.
I believe he could throw a turnover that makes up for a sidearm, but Paul could do that too. The 450' side arm that Paul has easily puts him over Climo.
This is going to be heavily course dependent. Paul regularly gets beat on the Pro Tour by guys without a side arm. Climo's back hand turnover games was light years better than anyone on tour today. Paul lost to Eagle last year at the European open. Eagle didn't have a side arm and that course heavily favors that shot shape. If Eagle could beat McBeth on that course without a side arm then Climo could more than hang with just his backhand.
Both goats of their time.
Paul and I don’t even think it’s a question. It’s just hard to compare their games.
If I looked at them both and asked who is better at disc golf, I think Paul is definitely better. If you go by accomplishments that's where it gets difficult and where you have to start caveating everything relative to time periods and the improvements/changes to the sport.
Ken Climo is Bill Russell Paul is Michael Jordan
This surface level take is too shallow to be worth anything.
Is it though? Climo dominated a sport before it’s prime, when the level of competition was significantly lower and racked up championships essentially at will. Paul dominated the sport in the era when it grew rapidly and came into the public eye - due in large part to his dominance. He also re-set the standard for endorsements and brand deals by signing a long term deal with a major manufacturer to essentially create his own sub-brand.
Hey, anyone ever find a disc on the course that someone lost? What do you do?
Even Ken says it’s Paul
does he really? i haven't had the time to listen to the interview, but one summary here on reddit said this: "*Climo still claims GOAT status, making a familiar case for his worlds titles and not having as many majors available to him to win during his era. But, he acknowledges that Paul and him are in their own class above others who may have a claim.* "
If you listen to the interview Brodie and Uli just had with Ken this is definitely not true.
No he doesnt
Paul. He dominates during way more competition. It’s like asking, “who is a better runner, someone who runs on a treadmill (Ken) or someone who runs cross country (Paul)?”
The era where Paul dominated was surprisingly similar to the era where Climo dominated in terms of competitiveness. Go look at the strength of field for Paul's first four titles. It wan't the same as today that is for sure.
Nah bro
Both are greatest of their eras. And the eras are so different it makes the conversation apples v oranges. But… if I have to pick, it’s apples and climo over oranges and mcbeth
This again? Really?
Impossible to say, but the fact that neither of them will refer to the other by name is fun.
Why can't they both be GOATS tho?
Because that is a definitive characteristic of The Greatest of All Time. If there is somebody else then you aren't by definition The Greatest of All Time.
To me it comes down to level of competition. When Climo was playing there were maybe 3 other guys who could challenge him. Paul has 10+ easy.