PDA

View Full Version : Is there a true GOAT in tennis or just a most achieved player?


GameSampras
05-18-2009, 04:10 PM
Do u think there is a true GOAT in tennis or any sports for that matter or do u feel that there is the best of each generation and each era cannot be compared to each other?

Can you objectively make a case for the GOAT? Is the most achieved player the GOAT, or is that player just the most achieved player. And what is your interpretation of how the GOAT should be classified.

tennis-hero
05-18-2009, 04:17 PM
this may sound strange but i think the GOAT is probably someone like Kraijek or stitch

someone who coulda been

someone whos game was perfect but didn't stay consistent

why do i rate them so highly?

because on thier day they could beat anyone

GOAT is the greatest of all time

to be the greatest you have to BEAT everyone

not be consisent over years, or win some shiny crap

its about being the best, being able to beat anyone

thats why i think the true GOAT or closest to it, is maybe one of those guys

maybe even MAC 84

basically on a given day, someone who reached their potential

i wouldn't rqate borg or laver as GOATs in a million years

gonzalez maybe

sampras possibly

Fed, yeah i can see it

NAdal.... in a few years yes

but.........who knows man

GAsquet if he ever reached his limit coulda been up there with them

Nalbandian aswell

SAfin

man the list goes on with these talents that never hit their potential

maybe even Agassi in a way never hit his limit or peak because he threw away his peak years (20s)

Hot Sauce
05-18-2009, 04:19 PM
Sorry I can't take any of your posts seriously after what I've witnessed from you OP.

rubberduckies
05-18-2009, 04:19 PM
There can be a GOAT if someone far outshines all other contenders.

At the moment, there is no GOAT in tennis because nobody has achieved enough to truly outdistance all others in terms of achievements.

There are very few GOATs throughout sports.

The most obvious one that comes to mind is Gretzky in Hockey.
His achievements are such that there is no way to rationally argue that anybody else should deserve the title.

prosealster
05-18-2009, 04:25 PM
i think there is such thing as greatest of all time - that should be measured by achievements.....but then again...every body measures that differently (is it titles?? GS?? ranking??)
there is also the best of all time...ie what tennis-hero was referring to...ie at their absolute best, who will beat the rest...but again..it's hard to compare since we dont have a time machine....but I do agree with T-H...having watched Stich in the 90s....at his absolute best...not many people can come out on top on a neutral surface

bruce38
05-18-2009, 07:18 PM
There can be a GOAT if someone far outshines all other contenders.

At the moment, there is no GOAT in tennis because nobody has achieved enough to truly outdistance all others in terms of achievements.

There are very few GOATs throughout sports.

The most obvious one that comes to mind is Gretzky in Hockey.
His achievements are such that there is no way to rationally argue that anybody else should deserve the title.

Many would argue on a pure skill level, Lemieux was superior. Had Lemieux not been injured and gotten cancer, his stats would be quite comparable to Gretzky's. Of course once can never know that.

bruce38
05-18-2009, 07:19 PM
I think if Fed beats Nadal at the FO and takes a couple of more grand slams after that, he is the GOAT for tennis.

egn
05-18-2009, 07:28 PM
Biggest arguement will always be talent vs. achievements....honestly though if you are that damn talented you should be able to achieve everything and if you get lazy than no you are not the greatest of all time..the greatest of all time should be one who has achieved the most in my eyes for on reason. You deserve it. Borg/McEnroe are two extremely talented players, Borg quit, McEnroe lost his drive at points. They are extremely talented but for lack of effort I can't call them GOAT. I hate the whole Laver is "most achieved" not greatest ever..if you want to argue Laver is not greatest because you feel someone else is more deserving fine..but don't use he is just the most achieved as an argument. GOAT is hard enough as it is but Laver with his 160+ titles, 2 Calendar Year Slams, Pro Major Sweep in 67 and numerous wins, titles, dominating records against all his greatest rivals gives him a shoe in for it. Besides Laver was immensely talented..you don't win so much and dominate the tour for 8 years with no talent. In order to be GOAT you have to be most achieved since if you are the greatest you should at least have won the most..my point. I mean think of it..its like Muster saying he is the greatest clay courter ever because he was so freaking amazing on the surface at his best...but his results on clay are nothing compared to Borg or Nadal. Sure he has 40 titles on clay, but 20-30 are small tiny ones and he only won like 6 master series and 1 GS on the surface..nothing compared to Nadal or Borg. Muster truly was one of the most talented clay courters ever...but definitely not the greatest because Borg and Nadal had equal, probably better talent, and achieved more. Though Muster 1995 was damn amazing and I don't know how most would fair against him then, but he is not GOAT of clay as he himself failed too much in his career and did not accomplish enough.