She definitely spares no expense, not unlike Helen Turley, Von Winning, etc. So how is she different from those winemakers?
But ultimately the vineyards she works with are among the most elite of the most elite vineyards in the world.
ā¦and Rousseau is Rousseau. From my experience, and for my palate, I would choose GC Rousseau wines as better(because I wouldnāt pick a best). Which is funny coming from a person as committed to whole cluster as I am.
ā¦and ābestā is a placeholder for āmy favoriteā 100% of the time. Thereās no intelligent way to actually measure/divine whom the best might be. Whether sports or winemaking.
And donāt forget his daughter. Tannat, Petite Sirah, Syrah, Zins - if anything she is even better, pulled back a bit and let the vineyards show. But who knows her?
Or a guy like Steve Matthiason. Never had a bad wine from him. And Iād put guys like Bryan Harrington on this list too - he found oddball vineyards all over, imported some cuttings to see what they would do, and never failed to make interesting wine. And there are plenty of people in places that have never been mentioned on this board - Judit Bott for example, or Attila Homonna, who only works with Furmint and HĆ”rslevelű and makes outstanding wine. Similar to Paul Gordon - work their own vineyards and make stellar wine from those. And I never had a bad wine from any of them.
Then you can switch over to Mariano Garcia - he made what, 30 vintages of Vega Sicilia?
But whatās the point?
One literally works out of a garage, another out of a barn, another has a few hundred million dollars behind him.
So are you a great winemaker if you have access to all the technology you want, all the labs you need, all the consultants you ask for, and a brilliant vineyard thatās maintained by a full-time crew? Or are you a better winemaker if you maintain your own small vineyard yourself and make the wine yourself. Or are you a better winemaker if you find vineyards that are managed by people who know those vineyards better than you ever will?
Maybe what matters more is whether the winemaker got a lot of points from a critic you like. Or a lot of mentions on this board. Or sells really expensive wine.
Indisputable, objective criteria for the GOAT in the NFL:
Tom Brady is the only elite QB in the modern era(basically his career now that I think about it) who understands the hard salary cap, and the over focus of dollars on the QB position. He realized that if he always signed for 70% of what the other elite QBs were signing for that his team would have significant advantages in depth at other positions(particularly defense). His team would also be able to keep defensive players fresh, and therefore able to load the dice in games against other high quality teams.
He has more Superbowl wins than anyone else, and the only time in his career that the Patriots/Bucs werenāt competitive was when he signed his first big contract.
He stated himself that he took less money in his next contract because he ājust wanted to be competitiveā. And that workedā¦to say the least.
Obviously thereās no right answer to this question but, because I havenāt seen his name yet, if weāre talking U.S. I think thereās a pretty compelling argument to be made for Jim Clendenen. RIP.
He makes his teammates better by getting them a larger paycheck(as in the Pats sign better players than they would have). And they made him the SOAT. The wins come from deeper teams. The stats are no different than Manning, Rogers, Brees(who all had wins, stats, longevity, and made their teammates better too).