I came across this article over on TOM: "Gable Versus Cael: How Their Coaching Careers Stack Up So Far" (https://news.theopenmat.com/blog/2018/04/19/gable-versus-cael-coaching-careers-stack-far-apr-19-2018).
Seems like a worthy effort to compare coaching performance from different eras, which is inherently problematic. So many variables and unknowns. I'm curious if others here find this to be a fair comparison. Something seems a little off to me, though I can't put my finger on it. There's no denying that Gable is a legend, but the article feels unfairly skewed in his favor. For example, it says: "Gable owned the sport in a way that has not yet been approached by anyone." It's still relatively early in Cael's coaching career (about half as long as Gable's), but it feels like he's at least "approaching" Gable's dominance.
Seems like a worthy effort to compare coaching performance from different eras, which is inherently problematic. So many variables and unknowns. I'm curious if others here find this to be a fair comparison. Something seems a little off to me, though I can't put my finger on it. There's no denying that Gable is a legend, but the article feels unfairly skewed in his favor. For example, it says: "Gable owned the sport in a way that has not yet been approached by anyone." It's still relatively early in Cael's coaching career (about half as long as Gable's), but it feels like he's at least "approaching" Gable's dominance.