PDA

View Full Version : WHo's goat between Federer Laver Gonzalez etc(excluding Sampras)


TheNatural
05-09-2009, 11:56 PM
Vote on the poll.

If we exclude Sampras from the vote and pretend he never existed who would you vote as the goat?


Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Bjorn Borg
Roger Federer
other

380pistol
05-10-2009, 12:03 AM
I'd say Pancho edging out Laver.

thalivest
05-10-2009, 12:04 AM
Laver is the GOAT with everyone on the list including Sampras, so of course Laver.

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 12:10 AM
Don't forget to vote then

I'd say Pancho edging out Laver.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 07:06 AM
From what I have read and seen what people said about Pancho.. He would be my vote. No one wanted to deal with pancho.


Most achieved on this list? Laver
Greatest? Pancho

TheNatural
05-10-2009, 09:07 AM
CHEERS. This poll is to see how the remaining 57% of the vote is distributed. Since in the other poll Sampras won 43% of the vote and the rest as a group won 57% of the vote.:twisted:

From what I have read and seen what people said about Pancho.. He would be my vote. No one wanted to deal with pancho.


Most achieved on this list? Laver
Greatest? Pancho

Leublu tennis
05-10-2009, 09:19 AM
For me its a toss between Tilden and Laver. Tilden just seems so long ago that Laver is probably a better choice. Sampras? No. Federer? No. Nadal? What can I say?

samster
05-10-2009, 09:22 AM
This is all subjective...

Who is your hero?

gj011
05-10-2009, 09:23 AM
Why is Sampras excluded.
Laver is the goat. Does not matter if you include or exclude Sampras.

egn
05-10-2009, 09:29 AM
Laver 10 char.

380pistol
05-10-2009, 09:59 AM
Nice to people are still jocking Laver.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 10:01 AM
Ahh another Laver jocksniffing lovefest. Are u all australian or what? LOL.


Im sure if Nadal grabs the calendar this year, People will already call him the GOAT at 22. :( It appears that the only way to be GOAT is to score a calendar slam. Even if the slams are only played on two surface back in Laver's day, or today where Grass is a damn imposter

Daized
05-10-2009, 10:08 AM
What I find stupid is that people are comparing eras that are far apart, and that people are comparing wood racquets to graphite.

I don't think Laver in today's era would fair as well as he did back when he was playing.

And I don't think someone like Nadal would fair as well in the wooden racquet era.

Stop comparing eras that are almost like different sports.

At the moment, Sampras is the GOAT of modern day tennis. Second is Federer. And one day in the future it may be Nadal.

egn
05-10-2009, 10:25 AM
Nice to people are still jocking Laver.

Pancho is arguebly the GOAT and I have him very close with Laver, I give Laver the edge as my personal opinion is Laver had a more complete game than Pancho as he did not struggle on the slower surfaces.

To GameSampras no nadal will not be GOAT if he wins a calendar year slam. Nadal will still have to do more.

egn
05-10-2009, 10:25 AM
also note if you two actually voted Pancho...he would have 3 votes.

380pistol
05-10-2009, 10:29 AM
Pancho is arguebly the GOAT and I have him very close with Laver, I give Laver the edge as my personal opinion is Laver had a more complete game than Pancho as he did not struggle on the slower surfaces.

To GameSampras no nadal will not be GOAT if he wins a calendar year slam. Nadal will still have to do more.

Understand.....

Is Laver great?? Hell yeah!!!!!!
is he one of the greatest??? Hell yeah!!!!!!
Is he the GOAT??? Maybe.
Is the unquestionably the GOAT the way many have him around here?? Please... can we be serious for minute???

also note if you two actually voted Pancho...he would have 3 votes.

I don't bother to vote in any of these polls, I don't see the point.

egn
05-10-2009, 10:31 AM
Understand.....

Is Laver great?? Hell yeah!!!!!!
is he one of the greatest??? Hell yeah!!!!!!
Is he the GOAT??? Maybe.
Is the unquestionably the GOAT the way many have him around here?? Please... can we be serious for minute???



Understood it is all opinion.



I don't bother to vote in any of these polls, I don't see the point.

okay to each his own.

rubberduckies
05-10-2009, 12:36 PM
When somebody who is "completely self-taught" can be the top player in the world for the better part of a decade, that speaks more to the weakness of the tour than anything else.

Jchurch
05-10-2009, 02:33 PM
When somebody who is "completely self-taught" can be the top player in the world for the better part of a decade, that speaks more to the weakness of the tour than anything else.

For the most part, Michael Jordan was self taught and look what he achieved.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 02:41 PM
For the most part, Michael Jordan was self taught and look what he achieved.

Numbers wise and achievements wise is MJ the GOAT? You can argue he isnt though. Kareem achieved more, Wilt achieved more individually. Russell led his team to more championships etc. Yet MJ is still highly regarded as the GOAT

NamRanger
05-10-2009, 03:06 PM
Numbers wise and achievements wise is MJ the GOAT? You can argue he isnt though. Kareem achieved more, Wilt achieved more individually. Russell led his team to more championships etc. Yet MJ is still highly regarded as the GOAT


Wilt Chamberlain played in an era where defense didn't existed. Come on, anyone who even knows anything remotely about basketball knows this.


MJ is not the GOAT of basketball though. His team was stacked from top to bottom in the years he won his championships. The Bulls' bench was better than most teams starting line-ups.

GameSampras
05-10-2009, 03:08 PM
Wilt Chamberlain played in an era where defense didn't existed. Come on, anyone who even knows anything remotely about basketball knows this.


MJ is not the GOAT of basketball though. His team was stacked from top to bottom in the years he won his championships. The Bulls' bench was better than most teams starting line-ups.



I agree. Wilt played against a bunch of white midgets mostly and also in an era with no 3 second in the lane rule, But if we got by "just the numbers" Wilts resume looks better than MJ's. Thats why Numbers arent the be all end all in sports.

asafi2
05-10-2009, 03:47 PM
I agree. Wilt played against a bunch of white midgets mostly and also in an era with no 3 second in the lane rule, But if we got by "just the numbers" Wilts resume looks better than MJ's. Thats why Numbers arent the be all end all in sports.

Basketball, unlike baseball, is not a sport where accumulated stats are as important as per game or per minute efficiency. Michael, while playing in the most difficult defensive era (they had to invent the flagrant foul because of what the Pistons were doing to him), had best PER ratings of any guard (it's not even close), and the highest points per game, while shooting an astounding 50% from the floor (would've been higher had he not come back with the wizards) when most guards are lucky to shoot that for an entire season.

And I'm not sure you grasp the idea of 3 second in the lane. The 3 second rule makes it so much easier to score. Wilt had to contend with guys hacking him, and crowding around him and just waiting under the basket for him because there was no 3 second rule. Nowadays, without handchecking or 3 seconds, any player with any remote speed can just drive to the hoop and dunk it. Not only did MJ have to deal with a defender pushing him around with both hands like an offensive lineman (which forced him to utilize the fadeaway), but there were 2 or 3 bigs waiting for him under the basket bc there was no 3 second rule. And what did MJ do? Dunk on them.

All realistic fans will ask the question... "who has EARNED the title of 'greatest of all time'"??
(All statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS)
****************************** *****
NBA ALL-TIME LEADERS:
1st Place: MJ, 149 total points
2nd Place: Wilt, 124 total points
3rd Place: Bill, 118 total points
4th Place: Jabbar, 114 total points
5th Place: Magic, 102 total points
(Active Players):
1st Place: Shaq, 85 total points
2nd Place: Tim, 71 total points
3rd Place: KB, 45 total points

asafi2
05-10-2009, 03:50 PM
Wilt Chamberlain played in an era where defense didn't existed. Come on, anyone who even knows anything remotely about basketball knows this.


MJ is not the GOAT of basketball though. His team was stacked from top to bottom in the years he won his championships. The Bulls' bench was better than most teams starting line-ups.

I beg to differ. MJ is the only player in the last 30 years to win an NBA championship without a dominant big man. Bet ya didnt know that one did you...

Rick Reilly argued that the 1998 Chicago Bulls had the worst players from the positions 2-10 (Scottie was injured all year because of his ailing back) to ever win a championship. After MJ retired in 1993, the Bulls had a decent year, then were barely .500 the year after. Pippen got arrested and the team was in shambles. Now if they alone were as good as you say, then they should still have been a threat in the East.

NamRanger
05-10-2009, 03:57 PM
I beg to differ. MJ is the only player in the last 30 years to win an NBA championship without a dominant big man. Bet ya didnt know that one did you...

Rick Reilly argued that the 1998 Chicago Bulls had the worst players from the positions 2-10 (Scottie was injured all year because of his ailing back) to ever win a championship. After MJ retired in 1993, the Bulls had a decent year, then were barely .500 the year after. Pippen got arrested and the team was in shambles. Now if they alone were as good as you say, then they should still have been a threat in the East.


So Dennis Rodman, the rebound machine doesn't count? You do realize that in 95 that the Bulls had the most ridiculous bench that would have outplayed most starting line ups right? What planet are you on again? Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Buechler, and Randy Brown? Those guys alone could have won most games for the Bulls.


MJ didn't need a dominant big man because he had a dominant team, period. The 95 team was utterly stacked from bottom to top.



95-98 MJ had a rediculous team, period.

The_Steak
05-10-2009, 04:06 PM
Rofl you guys are talking about basketball in a tennis forum.

Sampras the greatest because he has the most slams.

asafi2
05-10-2009, 04:06 PM
So Dennis Rodman, the rebound machine doesn't count? You do realize that in 95 that the Bulls had the most ridiculous bench that would have outplayed most starting line ups right? What planet are you on again? Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Buechler, and Randy Brown? Those guys alone could have won most games for the Bulls.


MJ didn't need a dominant big man because he had a dominant team, period. The 95 team was utterly stacked from bottom to top.



95-98 MJ had a rediculous team, period.

Dennis Rodman, standing at an astounding 6 foot 8, was not a big man, nor did he play like a big man. Aside from rebounding, he was not a shot blocker, or lane clogger ala Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, etc. He rebounded that is it. No other team could win an NBA championship without a dominant big man (one who can block, stop penetration, and score, as well grab rebounds). Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Buechler, and Randy Brown? Ha. I'm from Chicago and watched them every night. What made the team great was both Pippen and MJ in their mental primes, and with the addition of Rodman it made them unreal. The players you just mentioned could've been replaced with any random NBA players and the results would've been the same. Kerr is a great spot up shooter. But so are 100 other short white guys in the NBA. Kukoc never realized his potential (he had a similar skill set as Lamar Odom). Bill Wennington? Really? The rest arent even worthy of a mention.


Look at their stat lines and it'll show you how much they contributed.

jimbo333
05-11-2009, 01:38 AM
Nice to people are still jocking Laver.

I know I am from the UK, but this sentence doesn't seem to make any sense at all, what does it mean?

jimbo333
05-11-2009, 01:41 AM
Laver is the GOAT with everyone on the list including Sampras, so of course Laver.

Absolutely what I think as well, LAVER is the GOAT:)

jimbo333
05-11-2009, 01:41 AM
And what does basketball have to do with this thread?

TheNatural
05-11-2009, 02:21 AM
Shocking :shock: Federer is beating Laver in the poll. Do people here actually know anything about Lavers career and achievements?here is some info for those that don't:

Rod Laver(career) (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rod_Laver)

Rod Laver(wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver)

Pre open are pro tournaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_World_Singles_Tournament)

http://i39.tinypic.com/2465mqe.jpg

egn
05-11-2009, 02:29 AM
Where did the random increase in Fed votes come from?

jimbo333
05-11-2009, 02:30 AM
It's not shocking that Federer is winning as there are loads of Federer fans on these boards:)

However, it is really disappointing that they seem to be behaving like Sampras fans and just voting in poll without arguing their case:(

They would lose the argument, but it is a bit rubbish they are not even trying!!!

LAVER is the GOAT, no doubt about it at all:)

theduh
05-11-2009, 02:33 AM
Shocking :shock: Federer is beating Laver in the poll. Do people here actually know anything about Lavers career and achievements?here is some info for those that don't:

Rod Laver(career) (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Rod_Laver)

Rod Laver(wiki) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver)

Pre open are pro tournaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_World_Singles_Tournament)

http://i39.tinypic.com/2465mqe.jpg


Shocking to start this thread knowing that there is no clear cut standard to say who's GOAT or not. Remember that science (technology, regimen, training, etc) is totally different from what the pro tennis players have now and before. So to choose who's GOAT from the greats of yesterday and today is completely absurd as much as comparing one era to another.

For me to know who's really GOAT is to get all the greats, put them on a single tournament, use the same technology, all in their primes, and on a surface which every one is comfortable. Who wins? that is the GOAT.

TheNatural
05-11-2009, 02:51 AM
But that doesn't explain how people can vote Federer ahead of Laver despite Laver being way ahead on all of the main meterics, especially when Federer is half way through his career. Laver has about 150 more singles titles, the equivalency of 20 something slams, 5 Davis cups,world best for more years etc etc. So there should be little doubt that Laver is ahead of Federer.


Shocking to start this thread knowing that there is no clear cut standard to say who's GOAT or not. Remember that science (technology, regimen, training, etc) is totally different from what the pro tennis players have now and before. So to choose who's GOAT from the greats of yesterday and today is completely absurd as much as comparing one era to another.

For me to know who's really GOAT is to get all the greats, put them on a single tournament, use the same technology, all in their primes, and on a surface which every one is comfortable. Who wins? that is the GOAT.

theduh
05-11-2009, 02:58 AM
Hut that doesn't explain how people can vote Federer ahead of Laver despite Laver being way ahead on all of the main meterics, especially when Federer is half way through his career. Laver has about 150 more singles titles, the equivalency of 20 something slams, 5 Davis cups,world best for more years etc etc. So there should be little doubt that Laver is ahead of Federer.

Agree, I am a Federer fan and didn't vote for him because I don't believe that there's supposedly a GOAT. I guess people here didn't saw Laver played at all (like me) and can't just based everything on stats. I think they want to see Laver play and then compare to Fed who's game was really exceptional and revolutionized the game during his prime (not saying that Agassi, Sampras plus a whole bunch of greats didn't revolutionized tennis) it's just that when you say tennis TODAY there's only two people that come to mind Fed and Nadal and this is in no particular order.

I bet if you'd do another survey and added Nadal you'll get a different result.

luckyboy1300
05-11-2009, 03:22 AM
CHEERS. This poll is to see how the remaining 57% of the vote is distributed. Since in the other poll Sampras won 43% of the vote and the rest as a group won 57% of the vote.:twisted:

this doesn't reflect that at all. if that's your intention then the ones who voted yes to sampras as goat are not allowed to place their votes here; only the ones that said no.

prosealster
05-11-2009, 04:55 AM
i wouldnt vote for pete even if he was on the list

helloworld
05-11-2009, 09:27 AM
It's pointless to compare players from completely different era. Laver was playing with WOOD! I'm sure Nadal wouldn't do so well with a wooden racquet. In contrast, Laver wouldn't do so well if he was given Nadal's racquet either. Their styles suit different condition, hence it is impossible to compare eras that are too far apart. In my opinion, we should separate open era into two eras, wooden era and graphite era. Laver is the GOAT of wooden era and Sampras is the GOAT of graphite era. Things can change. Only time will tell.

jimbo333
05-12-2009, 07:59 AM
It's pointless to compare players from completely different era. Laver was playing with WOOD! I'm sure Nadal wouldn't do so well with a wooden racquet. In contrast, Laver wouldn't do so well if he was given Nadal's racquet either. Their styles suit different condition, hence it is impossible to compare eras that are too far apart. In my opinion, we should separate open era into two eras, wooden era and graphite era. Laver is the GOAT of wooden era and Sampras is the GOAT of graphite era. Things can change. Only time will tell.

Sampras is the best ever player in Graphite era on fast grass. Laver is the GOAT:)

fastdunn
05-12-2009, 10:05 AM
Vote on the poll.

If we exclude Sampras from the vote and pretend he never existed who would you vote as the goat?


Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Bjorn Borg
Roger Federer
other


I don't think Borg and Federer are in the same league as Laver, Gonzalez, and Tiden. AFAIK, Laver and Gonzalez won roughly 20 majors(slams and pro slam equivalents) and stayed at #1 for 7-8 years.

Borg had 4-5 years of brilliance. Federer had 4-5 years of brilliance so far. Amazing performances but they have not tested by TIME and thus nowhere near in the same league, IMHO.

At least not yet for Federer. Federer's true legacy will be defined by years 2008 and after. He should come back strong and show he can beat younger generation, IMHO. Top 5 GOAT's dominated younger generations for a decade or so.

380pistol
05-12-2009, 10:37 AM
I don't think Borg and Federer are in the same league as Laver, Gonzalez, and Tiden. AFAIK, Laver and Gonzalez won roughly 20 majors(slams and pro slam equivalents) and stayed at #1 for 7-8 years.

Borg had 4-5 years of brilliance. Federer had 4-5 years of brilliance so far. Amazing performances but they have not tested by TIME and thus nowhere near in the same league, IMHO.

At least not yet for Federer. Federer's true legacy will be defined by years 2008 and after. He should come back strong and show he can beat younger generation, IMHO. Top 5 GOAT's dominated younger generations for a decade or so.

You can't look at it like that. Would they be doing that in this climate (open era)??? What would Borg, Sampras and Federer have done in those days.

3 slam a year on grass.... Pete is going to town!!! Laver, take away the 6 slams he won 1960-62 as Hoad and Rosewall turned pro and weren't allowed to compete. How many does he win 1963-67 to add to his 5 in the open era?? Who knows. There are too many variables. Let anyone of Pancho, Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer play in Tilden's shoes and how would they do???

There are so many variables that get overlooked when looking at it that way.

380pistol
05-12-2009, 10:44 AM
Wilt Chamberlain played in an era where defense didn't existed. Come on, anyone who even knows anything remotely about basketball knows this.


MJ is not the GOAT of basketball though. His team was stacked from top to bottom in the years he won his championships. The Bulls' bench was better than most teams starting line-ups.


Yes the game has Changed, but 50 and 20, is 50 and 20. I mean Oscar Robertson avg'd 30 pts, 10 rebs, and 10 ast over a a periond of FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!! And this with no shot clock!!!!!!!
Dog, get it together.

Are you on crack??? Who the hell did Jordan have on his team besides Pippen?? Of the 6 championships teams, Pippen is the only one sniffing the hall of fame, the rest will get when they by a day pass!!!!!!!!!

Bech??? Who the hell was on his bench????
Look at Russell??? Havlicek. Cousy. Lakers...from West, Baylor, Kareem, Magic (who had Kareem), Worthy, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper (Def. POY). Bird had McHale, Parish, Danny Ainge, Walton, Dennis Johnson, and you wanna tell me MJ's bench was better than that???

Tell me what call stacked. 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998.... let's go!!!!!

fastdunn
05-12-2009, 04:30 PM
You can't look at it like that. Would they be doing that in this climate (open era)??? What would Borg, Sampras and Federer have done in those days.

3 slam a year on grass.... Pete is going to town!!! Laver, take away the 6 slams he won 1960-62 as Hoad and Rosewall turned pro and weren't allowed to compete. How many does he win 1963-67 to add to his 5 in the open era?? Who knows. There are too many variables. Let anyone of Pancho, Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer play in Tilden's shoes and how would they do???

There are so many variables that get overlooked when looking at it that way.

Yes, You are right. There are too many variables. So it all comes down to two of the most objective metrics:

1. number of majors (slams and pro slam equivalents)
2. number of years at the top.

Chopin
05-12-2009, 04:34 PM
Federer beating Laver in the polls--as he should. Laver=vastly over-rated.

jimbo333
05-13-2009, 03:08 PM
Federer beating Laver in the polls--as he should. Laver=vastly over-rated.

LAVER is the GOAT, you need to stick to the music mate (although MOZART is the GOAT):)

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 03:35 AM
With the Sampras vote included the final poll results are:

Sampras 43%
Federer: 25.65%
Laver 14.25%
Borg 7.125%
Gonzalez 7.125%
other 2.85%

tudwell
05-14-2009, 08:17 AM
You can't look at it like that. Would they be doing that in this climate (open era)??? What would Borg, Sampras and Federer have done in those days.

Why can't we look at it this way? Whoever dominates the most and the longest is the most dominant player to play the game, the one who came closest to being untouchable - that is, the greatest (in my opinion). Unfortunately, no one has really separated himself from the pack in this regard.

3 slam a year on grass.... Pete is going to town!!! Laver, take away the 6 slams he won 1960-62 as Hoad and Rosewall turned pro and weren't allowed to compete. How many does he win 1963-67 to add to his 5 in the open era?? Who knows.

Actually, we do know. There were three pro "majors" to sort of mirror the amateur ones: the Wembley Pro, the French Pro, and the U.S. Pro. Laver won the Wembley Pro four times, the French Pro once, and the U.S. Pro 3 times. He also won the Wimbledon Pro in the only year in which it was held (1967). That makes 9 slams (and in most of his pro years there were only three slams as opposed to four). Added to his 5 open era slams we get 14. 20 if we also include his amateur slams (although you make a good point that those aren't quite as impressive as his pro and open slams).


There are too many variables. Let anyone of Pancho, Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer play in Tilden's shoes and how would they do???

There are so many variables that get overlooked when looking at it that way.
We can't know how others would perform in others' shoes. It's pointless to speculate. That's why I try to look only at numbers. Of course, other factors must be taken into account (certain players missing a tournament - Pete in the 1999 U.S. Open, for example, or Borg missing the 1977 French). But in general, I try to use as little subjectivity as possible.

tudwell
05-14-2009, 08:22 AM
Also, three of the amateur slams were played on grass, but only the U.S. Pro was played on grass. Wembley, I believe, was played on an indoor wood surface and the French was played mostly on clay but then on indoor wood from 1963 to 1967. And if Sampras had played before the open era, he would probably have gone pro after winning a handful of amateur slams, so it's not as if he'd play 20 years in the 3/4 grass environment.

hoodjem
08-03-2009, 05:55 AM
The numbers would seem to put Fed in fifth or sixth place--

Combining Grand Slam titles with Pro majors, Rosewall won 23 "major" titles in his career, Laver won 19, Federer has captured 15, and Sampras and Gonzalez both won 14.

Considering all semifinal, final, and championship results in majors, we find Rosewall at unbelievable 52 (total semifinal, final and championship results in majors), followed by Tilden (35), Laver (32), Connors (31), Gonzalez (29), and Federer (22).

Laver won at least 199 tournaments, followed by Tilden (161), Jaroslav Drobny and Connors (each 148 ), Lendl (144), Rosewall (136), Roy Emerson (114), Tony Wilding (112), Borg (100), McEnroe (99), and Federer or Sampras (64).

Gonzalez seems to be the best at World No. 1 being that for at least 6 years, tied with Sampras. Federer owned the year-end top spot for 4 years (2004-2007). But if we include those years when a player has reached a co-No.1 position, we get a significantly different picture: Gonzalez and Rosewall, each 9 years on the top, Laver at 8 years, followed by Budge, Tilden, Vines, and Kramer each 7 years.

In terms of years spent in the top-10 in the world, remember that computer rankings were not used in the pre-Open Era. Tilden and Rosewall lead with 23 years in the top-10, Gonzalez spent 22 years (if we project 1962 and 1963 when Pancho did not play but probably would have been among top ten, even top three), Budge and Segura, each 19 years.

Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden are the outstanding players when it comes to their longevity. All three men were formidable players into their 40s. Rosewall won majors in a remarkable range that spanned from 1953-1972.

Concerning the longest streak of winning majors, this list is headed by Rosewall (9), Tilden (8 ) and Budge (6). Concerning a streak of top placings in majors, two players are outstanding: Rosewall (34) and Federer (21). It's fair to mention that in open era such streaks were more difficult to achieve than in Rosewall's time (1954-1968 ). Rod Laver has still the record regarding big finals reached in a row 1964 to 1968: 14.

Regarding a best 5-year span or career high, the most titles in a five-year period were won by Laver (82). The best percentage of titles in a five-year belongs to Tilden (approximately .815). The most majors won during a five-year period were won by Federer (12). The best percentage of majors in five-year period keep Tilden and Vines at the top (both .1000).

Finally, if one cares to consider doubles play (Federer is rightly proud of his Olympic gold medal in doubles), in the pre-Open Era virtually all players played in the doubles competition (often even the mixed doubles), while today most top players often refuse to play doubles. The players with the most major doubles titles (excluding mixed doubles) are: Rosewall (23), Hoad (21), Newcombe (17) and Emerson (16). Bob Hewitt has won 163 doubles titles which is all-time record.

kiki
06-10-2010, 02:59 PM
Vote on the poll.

If we exclude Sampras from the vote and pretend he never existed who would you vote as the goat?


Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Bjorn Borg
Roger Federer
other

I would go for Laver EVEN IF SAMPRAS PLAYED AGAINST HIM

kiki
06-10-2010, 03:03 PM
Why is Sampras excluded.
Laver is the goat. Does not matter if you include or exclude Sampras.

yeah¡¡ no matter whom you include.Laver´s the only one that would God play five set against¡¡¡ I think it is a brilliant quote even for Federer,Sampras or Borg supporters isn ´t it?

a new one.. when God decided to play tennis, the earth was moving so he only saw " down under"

JustBob
06-10-2010, 03:03 PM
I would go for Laver EVEN IF SAMPRAS PLAYED AGAINST HIM

And I would go for Jesse Owens EVEN IF USAIN BOLT RAN AGAINST HIM.









Well... maybe not...

samprasvsfederer123
06-10-2010, 03:08 PM
i hate gonzalez with a passion, what a horrible horrible man, plus people say what would he had done in the open era, well tilden won eveyone of his 10 before open era so dont come with bs to me. tilden too is a shame to tennis, a child molester and rapist.

Anaconda
06-10-2010, 03:10 PM
Borg, Federer, Laver and Sampras are all tied and in their own league for many different reasons. I've never watched him, but Pancho Gonzalez is widely acknowledged as a legend so maybe he should be their too.

Chadwixx
06-10-2010, 03:13 PM
Sampras may not be as complete as the guys listed but thats no reason to exclude him from the list. He was one of the best fast court players.

Tennis_Monk
06-10-2010, 05:56 PM
I am not seeing the connection between Sampras and GOAT discussion.

You dont suppose he is a GOAT. dont you?. now that would some joke.

Please come back when Sampras has a French Open title.

Tennis_Monk
06-10-2010, 06:02 PM
Sampras may not be as complete as the guys listed but thats no reason to exclude him from the list. He was one of the best fast court players.

Simple reason. Clay season accounts for ~40% of the Tennis season/tournaments. We all know , Sampras is an "also ran" when it comes to clay. So 40% of time every year, Sampras is no where to be seen or generally doesnt appear after first couple of rounds in a tournament.

Ofcourse , each individual has their own definition of GOAT. In general, GOAT implies that , this particular individual won on all surfaces /all conditions , most of the times. Sampras simply doesnt fit that definition.

if we are talking about "Greatest Grass courter of all time", now Sampras is ofcourse in discussion.

kiki
11-14-2010, 11:04 AM
Vote on the poll.

If we exclude Sampras from the vote and pretend he never existed who would you vote as the goat?


Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Bjorn Borg
Roger Federer
other

Laver is the guy that has played better this beautiful sport, with the heaviest opposition.Fed may equal him in temrs of talent, but never played so many tough opponents - except Nadal- as did Laver at his pirme.

Borg,Sampras,Budge,Tilden and Gonzales would come just as close.

Rosewall,Agassi,Becker,Edberg,Mc,Connors,Kramer,Pe rry and Hoad were just as good but a little short of the former ones.

piece
11-14-2010, 03:46 PM
Laver is the guy that has played better this beautiful sport, with the heaviest opposition.Fed may equal him in temrs of talent, but never played so many tough opponents - except Nadal- as did Laver at his pirme.

Borg,Sampras,Budge,Tilden and Gonzales would come just as close.

Rosewall,Agassi,Becker,Edberg,Mc,Connors,Kramer,Pe rry and Hoad were just as good but a little short of the former ones.

Interestingly, Laver disagrees with you.

"But also the other thing that Roger has that I don't think that I had was the amount of great champions that are actually in the draw.

There are so many players now competing and the world is playing the game of tennis and I think that's the thing, it's hard to challenge and say my era was tougher than his era." - Rod Laver, January 25 2007

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tennis/laver-backs-federer-to-become-the-best-ever/2007/01/25/1169594425009.html

Manus Domini
11-14-2010, 06:25 PM
Laver, then Pancho, then toss ups

why? because Laver won two calendar slams and Pancho didn't have the best personality, other than that, it would be Pancho who gets my vote

kiki
11-15-2010, 12:02 PM
Interestingly, Laver disagrees with you.

"But also the other thing that Roger has that I don't think that I had was the amount of great champions that are actually in the draw.

There are so many players now competing and the world is playing the game of tennis and I think that's the thing, it's hard to challenge and say my era was tougher than his era." - Rod Laver, January 25 2007

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tennis/laver-backs-federer-to-become-the-best-ever/2007/01/25/1169594425009.html

He´s always taken that humble atittude along his career.May be, he is ironizing when he says " all those grand champions"...

stevenwags987
11-15-2010, 12:04 PM
Obviously the swiss mistro.


Suprised you dont have lendl on the list.

-Steven

TMF
11-15-2010, 12:56 PM
He´s always taken that humble atittude along his career.May be, he is ironizing when he says " all those grand champions"...

Stop being in denial and accept Laver's opinion !

Talker
11-15-2010, 01:05 PM
Interestingly, Laver disagrees with you.

"But also the other thing that Roger has that I don't think that I had was the amount of great champions that are actually in the draw.

There are so many players now competing and the world is playing the game of tennis and I think that's the thing, it's hard to challenge and say my era was tougher than his era." - Rod Laver, January 25 2007

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tennis/laver-backs-federer-to-become-the-best-ever/2007/01/25/1169594425009.html

Gonzales said basically the same thing back in the 90's.
Laver was playing only a limited field, in those days there wasn't enough money to support a large field. If a player took time to develop he would have to find a regular job if he didn't have the money.
Many players were just getting by and driving to tournaments, not at all rested like the ones at the top who had some money.
All of these things resulted in weaker fields.

freshtennis
11-15-2010, 01:32 PM
federer all the way. there will be no other GOAT than federer.

praise ROGER!

piece
11-15-2010, 03:10 PM
He´s always taken that humble atittude along his career.May be, he is ironizing when he says " all those grand champions"...

So you're insinuating that Laver was deliberately relating a falsehood to the interviewer?

He has repeated this sentiment elsewhere, you know?

"Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is. If he does that it will equate to two that I won because standards are much higher these days."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/more-sport/2009/06/21/laver-don-t-rule-out-roger-for-slam-115875-21458778/


Unless you have some specific reason to doubt that Laver was speaking truthfully then I can see no impartial motivation to hold that he 'actually' feels differently on the subject than he has indicated in the interviews.

JeMar
11-15-2010, 03:37 PM
Still Laver.

Xemi666
11-15-2010, 11:19 PM
Lol, TS makes it sound we are excluding Sampras to give a chance to the others.

Newsflash: Sampras is not GOAT. For me Federer, when Laver and such were playing, tennis was not as profesional as it is today, the talent pool was smaller, etc.

TMF
11-16-2010, 06:49 AM
Lol, TS makes it sound we are excluding Sampras to give a chance to the others.

Newsflash: Sampras is not GOAT. For me Federer, when Laver and such were playing, tennis was not as profesional as it is today, the talent pool was smaller, etc.

If you post in the "former pro player talk" forum, posters like kiki, datacipher, Limpin or urban will say you are too young and have no tennis knowledge !

jackson vile
11-16-2010, 06:56 AM
If we are counting slams, as ****s think that is the only thing that matters. Pancho kills everyone with 27 slams.

jackson vile
11-16-2010, 06:57 AM
Lol, TS makes it sound we are excluding Sampras to give a chance to the others.

Newsflash: Sampras is not GOAT. For me Federer, when Laver and such were playing, tennis was not as profesional as it is today, the talent pool was smaller, etc.

So then in 2020 when the talent pool is even bigger than 2005 we can discount Roger's accomplishments as well? Not as much depth!

Xemi666
11-16-2010, 06:58 AM
If you post in the "former pro player talk" forum, posters like kiki, datacipher, Limpin or urban will say you are too young and have no tennis knowledge !

I don't know datacipher or urban, but kiki and limpin are borderline trolls, I couldn't care less what they think.

Xemi666
11-16-2010, 07:00 AM
So then in 2020 when the talent pool is even bigger than 2005 we can discount Roger's accomplishments as well? Not as much depth!

The gap is not significant enough between now and then, like it's between the now and 1960s, and you're just picking the part of my argument that suits you. Tennis is and has been a highly professional sport for sometime now, in those times that was not the case.

TMF
11-16-2010, 07:11 AM
If we are counting slams, as ****s think that is the only thing that matters. Pancho kills everyone with 27 slams.




WRONG !!!

http://i55.tinypic.com/6iwpvm.png

TMF
11-16-2010, 07:15 AM
The gap is not significant enough between now and then, like it's between the now and 1960s, and you're just picking the part of my argument that suits you. Tennis is and has been a highly professional sport for sometime now, in those times that was not the case.

Absolutely. Tennis today is a global sport and will still be in the next generation. In the pre-era it's not the case and for Laver, his career in the 60s was divided into two groups(amateurs and professionals). Big difference.

Xemi666
11-16-2010, 07:20 AM
Absolutely. Tennis today is a global sport and will still be in the next generation. In the pre-era it's not the case and for Laver, his career in the 60s was divided into two groups(amateurs and professionals). Big difference.

Yes, you'll get no argument from me :)

TMF
11-16-2010, 07:21 AM
I don't know datacipher or urban, but kiki and limpin are borderline trolls, I couldn't care less what they think.

Good, b/c you dont want to. Anything you say that is against Laver, they automatically assumed you are too young and thus lack credibility.

jackson vile
11-16-2010, 10:49 AM
WRONG !!!

http://i55.tinypic.com/6iwpvm.png



Federer (most slams)*



*ATP Open Era only, not in tennis history.


That is 100% a fact

PS. You quoted Wiki, no college degree in your future LOL

TMF
11-16-2010, 11:14 AM
Federer (most slams)*



*ATP Open Era only, not in tennis history.


That is 100% a fact

PS. You quoted Wiki, no college degree in your future LOL

No, it said "Most Grand Slam singles titles (all-time)" !!!
http://i55.tinypic.com/6iwpvm.png

Just b/c you say so isn't fact.:oops:

Pancho 27 slams is just a revision of history coming from you. Not even a high school degree for you. LOL

kiki
11-16-2010, 11:49 AM
I don't know datacipher or urban, but kiki and limpin are borderline trolls, I couldn't care less what they think.

Your only argument is insulting, because you have no tennis ( ¿ and life?) experience and just woke up yesterday.

Xemi666
11-16-2010, 12:55 PM
Your only argument is insulting, because you have no tennis ( ¿ and life?) experience and just woke up yesterday.

Indeed, please tell us how tennis is dying, we're all very interested in hearing, really... yawn.

kiki
11-16-2010, 01:04 PM
Indeed, please tell us how tennis is dying, we're all very interesting in hearing, really... yawn.

tennis is dying when the fans can hardly remember when S&V was last played and still keep talking bla,bla,bla,bla

PrinceMoron
11-16-2010, 01:41 PM
Pancho is the one they changed the rules for to try to stop him winning, but he just beat them even more easily. (One serve only).

Tennis_Monk
11-16-2010, 04:39 PM
Vote on the poll.

If we exclude Sampras from the vote and pretend he never existed who would you vote as the goat?


Bill Tilden
Pancho Gonzalez
Rod Laver
Ken Rosewall
Bjorn Borg
Roger Federer
other

How does Sampras figure in the GOAT discussion?. Did he win a slam on clay or what?

jackson vile
11-17-2010, 07:46 AM
Laver, then Pancho, then toss ups

why? because Laver won two calendar slams and Pancho didn't have the best personality, other than that, it would be Pancho who gets my vote

Laver had three CYS, Pre-Open, Pro, and Open. What makes Laver GOAT is the uniqueness of his accomplishments. And how he dominated all, and there were some amazing players at the time.

Pancho is amazing because he did so while working a JOB, also served his country, dominated for 8 straight years! He did not have sponsor, technology, self-taught etc. He just went out there as a regular joe like you or me and found a way to kick @$$

kiki
11-17-2010, 11:18 AM
Laver had three CYS, Pre-Open, Pro, and Open. What makes Laver GOAT is the uniqueness of his accomplishments. And how he dominated all, and there were some amazing players at the time.

Pancho is amazing because he did so while working a JOB, also served his country, dominated for 8 straight years! He did not have sponsor, technology, self-taught etc. He just went out there as a regular joe like you or me and found a way to kick @$$

Gonzales amateur years were bright but pale in comparison to what he achieved when pro.He certainly was the most dominant player of his era, with only Hoad having the raw potential to beat him out.He was an " advanced to his time " player.But so was Laver who is still the reference against anyone´s greatness is compared to.That means a lot, its been that way for the last 40 years ( not many people in not many fields can claim something like that)

MixieP
11-17-2010, 12:31 PM
Björn Borg.