Does winning determine who is "better" at something?

Exactly Loeb is the best rally driver because he has won 7 championships. Yet he is also not the best because he had no competition in winning them. Whereas someone like makinen won only 4 championships but against some mighty opposition who in my opinion was the best.
 
winning proves your better at that specific contest at that specific point. It has little direct bearing on anything outside the terms and instance of said contest.
 
I say yes to be honest. Let's say Barcelona played Yeovil Town, and Yeovil managed to win. Of course it seems obvious that Barcelona is the better team. But if they are supposed to be 'better' and yet they cannot beat an opponent that is 'worse' then surely they cannot inherently be better?

Basically, if you win at something, you're better until the person you beat beats you.
 
TheCenturion said:
I say yes to be honest. Let's say Barcelona played Yeovil Town, and Yeovil managed to win. Of course it seems obvious that Barcelona is the better team. But if they are supposed to be 'better' and yet they cannot beat an opponent that is 'worse' then surely they cannot inherently be better?

Basically, if you win at something, you're better until the person you beat beats you.
Click to expand...

ok, how do you explain this very common situation then:

A plays B, A wins
B plays C, B wins
C plays A, C wins

conditions were identical throughout the match, equipment is identical, etc, etc

by your theory everyone is better than each other, resulting in infinite skill and a trollface.jpg
 
DJMK4 said:
Id say no

If you were at winner at something MULTIPLE times

then I would say yes

Anyone could have a lucky "fluke", doesnt mean you were better at it unless you done it over and over again.
Click to expand...

i agree, it is about consistency

if i fluke a hole-in-one and tiger woods gets it in two, it doesnt necessarily mean i am "better" :p ;) :p
 
Playing Wordfeud against my mate results in him winning 75-80% of the time. I would definitely say he is better at it than me, although I have totally crushed him a few times. There is a lot of luck to figure in to that game, but out of 50+ games I doubt it is just luck on his side.
 
Reaper 392 said:
ok, how do you explain this very common situation then:

A plays B, A wins
B plays C, B wins
C plays A, C wins

conditions were identical throughout the match, equipment is identical, etc, etc

by your theory everyone is better than each other, resulting in infinite skill and a trollface.jpg
Click to expand...

At the time that A plays B, A is better.

At the time that B plays C, B is better.

At the time that C plays A, C is better.

You're only as good as your last game.
 
TheCenturion said:
I say yes to be honest. Let's say Barcelona played Yeovil Town, and Yeovil managed to win. Of course it seems obvious that Barcelona is the better team. But if they are supposed to be 'better' and yet they cannot beat an opponent that is 'worse' then surely they cannot inherently be better?

Basically, if you win at something, you're better until the person you beat beats you.
Click to expand...
LOL. By that logic, you're saying that if a last-place team beats a first-place team they should automatically be boosted to first place, no matter what their win/loss record is. :confused:

You do realise that a even a master can be beaten by a child at times because the child doesn't follow any logical pattern that the master would expect.
 
Reaper 392 said:
if they consistently win with identical equipment and conditions then yes. you could have a mini race against an F1 car. the F1 car would consistently win even with a much worse driver
[/pedant]
Click to expand...

that's not pedantry that's just wrong.


if i raced an f1 car and it won then yes that proves an F1 car is better ad straight line speed than a human being on foot.

which would be correct the drivers skill isn't the deciding factor in that race.
 
TheCenturion said:
I say yes to be honest. Let's say Barcelona played Yeovil Town, and Yeovil managed to win. Of course it seems obvious that Barcelona is the better team. But if they are supposed to be 'better' and yet they cannot beat an opponent that is 'worse' then surely they cannot inherently be better?

Basically, if you win at something, you're better until the person you beat beats you.
Click to expand...

There are elements of luck/chance involved too though in the instance of a football match - you can't really conclude who is better on the basis of a single match like that.

If you were to set a challenge between two poker players - give them both deep stacks and play 100,000 hands heads up - the winner, after 100,000 hands is declared to be 'better' then you'd have reduced the element that luck/chance and would have a strong argument that the winner was indeed better.

If however you got the two players to play a single hand against each other then luck plays a big factor and you can't really declare who is better.
 
No, because ultimately because the better person knows that sometimes you shouldn't win, for whatever reason that may be.
 
Some might say that this years F1 drivers championship illustrates the OPs arguement well. Winning does not always mean best :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom