PDA

View Full Version : All this GOAT talk, yet nothing established...


Sephiroth_FFVII
03-11-2009, 08:40 AM
There is at least one new thread regarding the GOAT in tennis on a daily basis on this board. Everyone seems to have their own idea of who the GOAT really is. Some say Federer, some say Sampras, others believe Lendl, and now even Nadal. While we can all agree to each his own, it's still true that we all seem to have different ideas of what the GOAT has on his resume.

To explain further, we all use different properties and systems to establish our conclusion regarding the GOAT. While it's definitely true that a large part of our conclusion depends on personal preference and which player one likes or dislikes, there are definitely some traits, abilities and accomplishments we can use create a system through which the GOAT can be defined.

This will not only give us a common system work with in order to define the GOAT but also take some of the bias' out of the equation. I have thought of a few things in which a player is to be 'graded' in.

These include:

Grand slams final/won.
Masters series, Olympics perfomances.
Period of time dominated.
Surfaces dominated, surface variety.
Overall results against all cometition.
Overall technique (serve, groundstrokes, movement, etc.)
What the competition is/was during that time period.

Several more need to be added in order to make this precise. Any help is highly appreciated. Also, I have not created any scoring table or anything of the sort yet as I feel a lot more feedback and scoring categories are needed to make this precise.

I am well aware there will always be differences in opinions, I just want try and make something with he help of this board's members that we can all agree on (at least for the most part).

Please feel free to add anything helpful; any comments, concerns, suggestions and questions are appreciated.

burosky
03-11-2009, 01:35 PM
If you mean strictly looking at facts to take out bias out of the equation you cannot include Overall Technique and What is the competition is/was during that time period. Both are subject to personal opinion.

veroniquem
03-11-2009, 01:42 PM
I would say:
# of slams won
# of masters won
# of titles won
Longevity (year ends at #1, etc)
Short and long term domination over the competition and on several surfaces
Calendar or career grand slam (or golden slam).
All of this in no particular order.

rubberduckies
03-11-2009, 02:04 PM
But using slams and masters series is extremely unfair to players of the 80s and earlier when these events were not treated like they are today. There isn't an ounce of doubt in my mind that Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe would've won more slams than they did if people counted slams like they do today.

veroniquem
03-11-2009, 02:07 PM
But using slams and masters series is extremely unfair to players of the 80s and earlier when these events were not treated like they are today. There isn't an ounce of doubt in my mind that Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe would've won more slams than they did if people counted slams like they do today.
I know, I agree, the tour has changed a lot over the years: the format, the priorities, the rules, the level of competition, the prize money, not even mentioning the technology and the surfaces. That makes it very awkward to do long term comparisons IMO.

Sephiroth_FFVII
03-11-2009, 02:55 PM
I know, I agree, the tour has changed a lot over the years: the format, the priorities, the rules, the level of competition, the prize money, not even mentioning the technology and the surfaces. That makes it very awkward to do long term comparisons IMO.

I agree with this. I wonder if there's a way to work around this to make it more fair for players from older time periods. Obviously it won't be completely balanced, but any ideas?

veroniquem
03-11-2009, 03:13 PM
I agree with this. I wonder if there's a way to work around this to make it more fair for players from older time periods. Obviously it won't be completely balanced, but any ideas?
No sorry, my only idea is to compare players within a certain era only. I know it's a little exaggerated but when I see old matches with wooden racquets and everything, I almost feel like they're playing a different sport.

icedevil0289
03-11-2009, 03:16 PM
No sorry, my only idea is to compare players within a certain era only. I know it's a little exaggerated but when I see old matches with wooden racquets and everything, I almost feel like they're playing a different sport.

I know what you mean. The sport has evolved a great deal and it is a bit absurd to compare players of different eras.

zacinnc78
03-11-2009, 05:04 PM
with so many hardcourt matches,ultimate power and fitness,technology,lots more money,it really is a different sport in regards to accomplishments.....i would think its harder nowadays to win slams because its such a young mans sport now with all the injuries yet everybody being in such good condition -those old grass and clay matches looked so relaxed and easy compared to nowadays -id say there was more of a true enjoyment of the game back then now its just "accomplish more,break records,become the GOAT " so i really think its just impossible to compare eras

having said all this federer is the GOAT and nadal may be closing in on him if he can stay healthy and fed can stay in the losing state of mind hes in:)

The-Champ
03-11-2009, 05:42 PM
But using slams and masters series is extremely unfair to players of the 80s and earlier when these events were not treated like they are today. There isn't an ounce of doubt in my mind that Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe would've won more slams than they did if people counted slams like they do today.


You see, it was that b!tch Sampras who started that whole thing about breaking the slam record, the guy was obsessed (on a Linda Blair level) by it literally.

veroniquem
03-11-2009, 05:47 PM
with so many hardcourt matches,ultimate power and fitness,technology,lots more money,it really is a different sport in regards to accomplishments.....i would think its harder nowadays to win slams because its such a young mans sport now with all the injuries yet everybody being in such good condition -those old grass and clay matches looked so relaxed and easy compared to nowadays -id say there was more of a true enjoyment of the game back then now its just "accomplish more,break records,become the GOAT " so i really think its just impossible to compare eras

having said all this federer is the GOAT and nadal may be closing in on him if he can stay healthy and fed can stay in the losing state of mind hes in:)
I don't know about the last sentence but I totally agree with the rest of your post.

Sephiroth_FFVII
03-11-2009, 07:52 PM
In this case, we should perhaps stop talking about a single GOAT time and just come up with top 5-10 or something. A single GOAT will always be based majorly on bias; statistics also fail to help because of the earlier mentioned reasons of more events, easier travel, different technologies, etc.

Blinkism
03-11-2009, 08:57 PM
Well, the GOAT should atleast be the greatest player of their era, no?

Every Era (roughly every decade) has their dominant players. For example, the majority of the 60's was dominated by Rod Laver. Aside from winning the calendar year Grand Slam twice, he had a winning record against all of his rivals (some of whom are also in the GOAT discussion) such as Emerson, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Ashe, and Newcombe.

So the first step in creating the list of potential GOATS is to pick, really, the top 3 players from every decade.

Some important criteria is ranking, career titles, level of success on all surfaces (variety), longevity (with a focus on the period of domination by said GOAT), GS success.

Other criteria (but less important) would include success in the Olympics, World Championships, Masters Cup, Grandslam Cup, Davis Cup, or what have you. Success in Doubles, Mixed Doubles, and in Juniors tennis is an added bonus but is only a minor detail.

Also, the GOAT should really hold a number of records that have held, or are still held, for a long time.

That being said, Any player before the 1960's included in the GOAT discussion should be measured differently than anyone after the 60's, as there was a lack of variety in court surface and a lack of variety in the overall competition (especially in the early years dominated by the Brits, French, Americans, and Australians).

THERAFA
03-11-2009, 09:05 PM
I've always said that tennis won't have a GOAT until someone has Sampras' Total Slams record AND the Career Grand Slam, until then there is no:
GOAT