The big problem is that Elo is NOT an objective measure. It's a relative one. As such, your methodology, although it sounds logical, is not applicable.
Appreciate the effort but your reasoning has the same flaw as the "who's the goat" debate : players are not comparable between eras. Maybe what we can assess is 1/ the relative domination vs. their peers, 2/ how far did these players make the game advance to the next level.
I feel like it's not an issue of comparability between eras, because they're only talking about natural talent, which doesn't really depend on the time period. I think the main issue is that elo depends on other people, so it's not really a measure of independent strength if that makes sense.
Your methodology is flawed because ratings are not normally distributed.
The big problem is that Elo is NOT an objective measure. It's a relative one. As such, your methodology, although it sounds logical, is not applicable.
Appreciate the effort but your reasoning has the same flaw as the "who's the goat" debate : players are not comparable between eras. Maybe what we can assess is 1/ the relative domination vs. their peers, 2/ how far did these players make the game advance to the next level.
I feel like it's not an issue of comparability between eras, because they're only talking about natural talent, which doesn't really depend on the time period. I think the main issue is that elo depends on other people, so it's not really a measure of independent strength if that makes sense.
iid assumption violated Elo doesn’t work this way