Originally Posted by Punpun
Oh god. No, just no. How can you even have the guts to say your mode of choosing is better when you don't even put your choice under review of your "peers aka "experts".
Would be way more pertinent if you chose a group of "experts" and had them pick out of their case for any player the better guy. Thus reaching a consensus.
What you want to do is simply laughable.
Ps: I didn't even partake in the top 100 all-time threads.
We've seen already that, when voting on a consensus, it results in poor choices.
Ok, so we could have a group of experts rather than letting any old (or, should that be, 'young') ISH member vote.
However, there still might be one person who puts forward a more convincing case than the other 9. But people are too stubborn to shift their way of thinking.
I'll give you an example. It's common belief that Jordan is the greatest player of all-time. I'm of that opinion too. However, I'm open to someone changing my mind.
How open to persuasion would the other experts be?
That's why I like my methodology. Call it a dictatorship if you like, but I am curious to see the arguments for different players, and I will ultimately decide which argument is most convincing.
If you don't like it, then simply don't participate. However, it would be a shame as I encourage as many people as possible to offer their opinion.