PDA

View Full Version : What is the definition of G.O.A.T


The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 11:35 AM
We all use the term GOAT however it has become painfully obvious that the term
Means different things to different people.

I'm calling on a bi partisan convention to try and come forward with some sort of unified definition of this very vague term.

If we can do that workout schewing the parameters towards ones favorite player then I think the debate will end once and for all......highly doubtful but at least it will be interesting to try.

Any takers?

SoBad
10-08-2012, 11:40 AM
The definition is complex - there are many different factors involved.
http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab108/SoBad2010/table1-1.jpg

No1e
10-08-2012, 11:44 AM
I think when people talk about the GOAT, the performances at majors are the most important. Though Roger holds many other amazing records, it's my impression that it is his 17 majors that set himself apart from all other great players.

No of weeks as world no.1, year-end no.1 and WTFs are the next things that count, I think.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 11:48 AM
I think when people talk about the GOAT, the performances at majors are the most important. Though Roger holds many other amazing records, it's my impression that it is his 17 majors that set himself apart from all other great players.

No of weeks as world no.1, year-end no.1 and WTFs are the next things that count, I think.

That would work if you only wanted to name Federer as the greatestest of all time But that wouldn't really work for anyone else....because then you would have to also say according to your definition that Emerson was greater than Laver.

You would also have to say that Margaret court is better than Graf,Williams , Navratilova , evert.

Also you would have to say that laver Borg and Nadal are all equal.....and that Emerson was better than all three of them.

So I don't think your definition would really work. Do you?

Cup8489
10-08-2012, 11:52 AM
That would work if you only wanted to name Federer as the greatestest of all time But that wouldn't really work for anyone else....because then you would have to also say according to your definition that Emerson was greater than Laver.

You would also have to say that Margaret court is better than Graf,Williams , Navratilova , evert.

Also you would have to say that laver Borg and Nadal are all equal.....and that Emerson was better than all three of them.

So I don't think your definition would really work. Do you?

Youre simplifying it. Laver is considered better because of the two CYGS, and he turned pro.

Navratilova is considered great because she had to contend with a woman almost on her level in Evert, not true for Court. Serena is mentioned because of the levels she's reached in her tennis, not just because of her accolades.

Borg and Nadal are virtually equal in most people's minds.

NadalDramaQueen
10-08-2012, 11:53 AM
That would work if you only wanted to name Federer as the greatestest of all time But that wouldn't really work for anyone else....because then you would have to also say according to your definition that Emerson was greater than Laver.

You would also have to say that Margaret court is better than Graf,Williams , Navratilova , evert.

Also you would have to say that laver Borg and Nadal are all equal.....and that Emerson was better than all three of them.

So I don't think your definition would really work. Do you?

It works for players after a certain time period, when conditions (full fields, etc.) are similar enough to rank each major win on equal footing.

A lot of people like to include longevity, but I've always been impressed with the players who were able to create their own eras, where they were clearly the best over a period of some years.

I would think a high major count, and dominating a period (at least a period of two years where you are the best) are minimum requirements.

Alchemy-Z
10-08-2012, 11:54 AM
for me

GOAT= a nickname you give a player that you believe will create records so unbreakable that no one in the history of the sport could ever over-take them.

so for me it's Laver because of the 2 "true grandslams" seem so untouchable.

Fed as awesome as he is could not do it.
Rafa has been able to string 3 together but no dice on #4
and red hot winning streak Novak..with a mental edge of being nearly unstoppable could not make the final of the FO.

I am starting to doubt we will see a Grandslam again....much less (2) from the same player.

will we see someone win more than 20 slams? probably
someone win more than 7 times at a single slam? that should probably happen in the next 3 years


Fed's weeks @ #1 is about the strongest stat I think he has and we will see when he's cashed in his chips just what that number will be.

No1e
10-08-2012, 11:55 AM
That would work if you only wanted to name Federer as the greatestest of all time But that wouldn't really work for anyone else....because then you would have to also say according to your definition that Emerson was greater than Laver.

You would also have to say that Margaret court is better than Graf,Williams , Navratilova , evert.

Also you would have to say that laver Borg and Nadal are all equal.....and that Emerson was better than all three of them.

So I don't think your definition would really work. Do you?

So, what do you have in mind?

Cup8489
10-08-2012, 11:57 AM
So, what do you have in mind?

He has in mind:

"Must have 7 French Opens. Must have beaten Federer 8 times out of ten in majors. Must be named Rafael Nadal."

PCXL-Fan
10-08-2012, 11:59 AM
GOAT is a nickname iberian and people of iberian descendant (eg many south americaners) call Nadal.

GOAT is also a nickname people of germanic ethnicity call Federer.

GOAT is also a nickname people of old age and Aussies call Laver.

GOAT is also a nickname americans over 30 and greek people call Sampras.

2ndGOAT is also a nickname Scandinavian people call Borg (no sorry they dont call him GOAT)

SoBad
10-08-2012, 12:02 PM
GOAT is a nickname iberian and people of iberian descendant (eg many south americaners) call Nadal.

I put Nadal just a notch below Sampras.

No1e
10-08-2012, 12:03 PM
He has in mind:

"Must have 7 French Opens. Must have beaten Federer 8 times out of ten in majors. Must be named Rafael Nadal."

Well, I think mine is the more popular definition, even though I am not 100% sure I agree with that myself.

I remember people started labeling Roger as the GOAT after his slam count had surpassed Sampras'.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 12:11 PM
So, what do you have in mind?

It's tough....I don't want to seem biased.

Certainly the number of slams should count.

Also the number of slams on different surfaces should count

I'm scared to say the last one....but ones record against your main rival should count for something ? You can't says it has zero significance just because you hate Nadal.

Weeks at no 1 and lesser tournaments don't matter to me at all. I believe only slams matter.

PCXL-Fan
10-08-2012, 12:15 PM
Weeks at no.1 maters in terms of consistency. You see Nadal is not that consistent on Hardcourt.

We constantly ding Federer for being less consistent on clay because he loses to Nadal on clay and doesn't reach 80% clay court tournament finals he entered into. So we must also ding Nadal for not being consistent on Hardcourt.

RogerRacket111
10-08-2012, 12:19 PM
GOAT says "BAAAAAAHHHHH" :)

COW says "MOOOO"

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Weeks at no.1 maters in terms of consistency. You see Nadal is not that consistent on Hardcourt.

We constantly ding Federer for being less consistent on clay because he loses to Nadal on clay and doesn't reach 80% clay court tournament finals he entered into. So we must also ding Nadal for not being consistent on Hardcourt.

I don't want to turn this into a Fedal thing.

I want to actually consider all players as fairly as possible.

Sure my favorite player is Nadal....but I'm trying not to give in to my urge.

I'm truly trying to define goat.....

I think we first have to define what the term actually means in a general sense.

Does it mean the player with best record over the longest period of time? Then yes it's Fed......

But that's not what goat means to me.....to me it means that this person is the greatest player of all time meaning that he could beat anyone anywhere .......

That person could be djokovic for example except he doesn't have the FO....he is certainly on his way though.

I don't think there is a real answer to the real goat......meaning the BEST......someone who no one could defeat.

Mcenroe came awfully close. I think he had like 2 losses one year? He was basically unbeatable ....same as Jokers record almost.

Evan77
10-08-2012, 12:31 PM
not his goat s*** again please. don't you guys ever get tired? how many open threads we already have about goat stuff? like 100s.

Swissv2
10-08-2012, 12:33 PM
According to the TW forums, the GOAT is determined not by statistics - but by subjective favoritism and bias.

True story.

tennis_pro
10-08-2012, 12:34 PM
not his goat s*** again please. don't you guys ever get tired? how many open threads we already have about goat stuff? like 100s.

We need another 50!

VPhuc tennis fan
10-08-2012, 12:34 PM
Line, hook, and sinker. Damn, the fishing expedition has been great!
Bite, fish, bite.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-08-2012, 12:35 PM
Why GOAT? and not S-H-E-E-P?

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 12:36 PM
not his goat s*** again please. don't you guys ever get tired? how many open threads we already have about goat stuff? like 100s.

Don't read them.

ollinger
10-08-2012, 12:37 PM
It's Bill Clinton and "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Take a debate (GOAT) that's already impossibly confounded by disagreement and confound it further by adding disagreement on what the term actually means. Brilliant.

Cup8489
10-08-2012, 12:40 PM
It's Bill Clinton and "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Take a debate (GOAT) that's already impossibly confounded by disagreement and confound it further by adding disagreement on what the term actually means. Brilliant.

Don't tell him he's brilliant, he already thinks he's the son of god.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-08-2012, 12:41 PM
# of pages of the thread "Fed.. weak era": 103
# of pages of "Rafa...GOAT candidate": 18 and rising
# of pages of "Rafa... w/ a broken foot": 6 and rising
Anyone's guess if this thread will top the 103 pages? I vote YES since I can see a lot of fish biting right now, and more to come. Come, fish, come.

Evan77
10-08-2012, 01:02 PM
Don't read them.
sure, I don't have to but it's getting harder to navigate on TW because we have so many multiple threads about the same thing.

I'm reading your posts over and over again. You trying to explain to *******s that Rog/Rafa h2h matters, and that goat shouldn't be defined by slams only ...then Fed fans/*****, call you names and try to get back to you, call you delusional/stupid etc. Same story all over again. I admire you for being stubborn enough to go through this agony again and again and again. I, personally don't have anything against you btw ... you have your opinion and you stick with it, fine with me.

I, in general disagree with any goat discussions because, in general we are talking about oranges and apples most of the time. different competition, different equipment, different surfaces, different style of game, there are so many variables.

However (I'll try to be objective here and contribute to your thread), it's hard to deny that Fed is the most successful (prefer this term more than than goat) tennis player in tennis history based on his results (total slams won, 300 weeks at #1 etc).

Regardles of their h2h, Fed is simply a much versatile player than Nadal ever will be. Nadal winning 2 HC slams is an amazing accomplishment for him. I simply don't want to go into that match up issue, but it's there. Fed always has been impatient and arrogant when he is playing against Nadal, because Fed has a God complex. Rafa, on the other hand will never have Rog's tennis intelligence or skills, all he does well is grinding and pushing, wearing his opponents down till their collapse.

I love watching Noserer playing tennis when he is on and not shanking all over the court because he is a genius like it or not. I dislike his arrogance and his personality. I will never cheer for him. I didn't like a young Fed to begin with, he was throwing tantrums left and right but I always recognized his amazing talent. I prefer Rafa's personality, but do not like his game style. Early in Rafa's career I liked him a lot, because he was so fresh and so different. Yet he is his family's puppet and he simply can not or will not think with his own head, a huge turn off for me.

Hood_Man
10-08-2012, 01:16 PM
Dominance of your sport over a longer, extended period than anyone else.

Gonzo_style
10-08-2012, 02:15 PM
I hate GOAT threads...

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 02:54 PM
sure, I don't have to but it's getting harder to navigate on TW because we have so many multiple threads about the same thing.

I'm reading your posts over and over again. You trying to explain to *******s that Rog/Rafa h2h matters, and that goat shouldn't be defined by slams only ...then Fed fans/*****, call you names and try to get back to you, call you delusional/stupid etc. Same story all over again. I admire you for being stubborn enough to go through this agony again and again and again. I, personally don't have anything against you btw ... you have your opinion and you stick with it, fine with me.

I, in general disagree with any goat discussions because, in general we are talking about oranges and apples most of the time. different competition, different equipment, different surfaces, different style of game, there are so many variables.

However (I'll try to be objective here and contribute to your thread), it's hard to deny that Fed is the most successful (prefer this term more than than goat) tennis player in tennis history based on his results (total slams won, 300 weeks at #1 etc).

Regardles of their h2h, Fed is simply a much versatile player than Nadal ever will be. Nadal winning 2 HC slams is an amazing accomplishment for him. I simply don't want to go into that match up issue, but it's there. Fed always has been impatient and arrogant when he is playing against Nadal, because Fed has a God complex. Rafa, on the other hand will never have Rog's tennis intelligence or skills, all he does well is grinding and pushing, wearing his opponents down till their collapse.

I love watching Noserer playing tennis when he is on and not shanking all over the court because he is a genius like it or not. I dislike his arrogance and his personality. I will never cheer for him. I didn't like a young Fed to begin with, he was throwing tantrums left and right but I always recognized his amazing talent. I prefer Rafa's personality, but do not like his game style. Early in Rafa's career I liked him a lot, because he was so fresh and so different. Yet he is his family's puppet and he simply can not or will not think with his own head, a huge turn off for me.

Not a bad contribution.....not really on point but some good stuff there.

I especially liked the part where you called Federer the most successful player of all time rather than the term goat.

That is a fact and undeniable .

But the issue then goes to : does the term "most successful player of all time mean the same as Goat".

I'm not getting into the Fedal debate because you really can't as goat means different things to different people.

I think what I'm trying to show everyone here is that you really cannot define Goat.


Rather all these so called "goat" discussion really boils down to who you think is the best player at their peak.

This is complete opinion......in fact there is a tennis magazine article this month on just that ( which I have not read).

Basically the term "goat" is a misnomer. It's an opinion and people will get into heated debates.

I personally think if you put each player at their peak an play them against each other is the only way to really tell......and then of course you have surfaces .

Here's my list of the greatest players of all time at peak.....or "Goatap" ...( no not a new iPhone app :-) ).

Grass : Federer
Hard: Sampras
Clay: Nadal

These guys at their peak cannot be beaten on that surface by anyone.

Now who is the best of those four? We will never know about rebound ace....

Here's how I would do it:

Federer Sampras and Nadal could all beat each other even at peak on grass. Favorite goes to Fed but either could upset ....so that's 2 point for the favorite fed and one each for the others

Fed Sampras and Nadal could all beat each other on hard bit edge goes to Sampras . So I give 2 points to Pete as favorite and 1 point each to Fedal.

On clay....well here is where Nadal is heads above the rest. The others have no chance . I have to give 3 points to Nadal and zero to the others.

Nadal 5 pts
Fed 4 pts
Sampras 4 pts

Prisoner of Birth
10-08-2012, 03:21 PM
In the Open Era

1. Number of Grand Slams counts for most, provided they have reasonable success at all Slams.

2. A career Grand Slam or at least multiple Slam finals at Slams they've never won at.

3. Versatility. This is similar to point number 2 in a way but the Slams have covered just 2 or 3 surfaces over history. There are more surfaces around; indoor hards, carpet, different types of hard and clay courts. Should be good on ALL surfaces. No exceptions.

4. Quality of play. I look at players to see how good they were, I don't go "just by the numbers". I feel I can spot greatness when I see it but I could be wrong.

5. Peak of dominance. Should have at least one great high in their career. I can't call a player a GOAT even if they win 1 Slam an year for 30 years.

6. A relatively long and sustained Prime. I judge this by their level of play, not their success.

7. Consistency. They should very rarely go out early in tournaments, especially during their prime.

8. Longevity. Should be relevant for at least 10 years. They don't have to keep winning Slams all through but need to have a good showing throughout.

9. Fuel for not just the Slams but the smaller tournents as well. Everything counts, even if it's just a 500, to a certain extent.

10. Good, all-court play with no glaring weaknesses.

smoledman
10-08-2012, 04:01 PM
POB - by all those criteria there is only 1 pick.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 04:19 PM
In the Open Era

1. Number of Grand Slams counts for most, provided they have reasonable success at all Slams.

2. A career Grand Slam or at least multiple Slam finals at Slams they've never won at.

3. Versatility. This is similar to point number 2 in a way but the Slams have covered just 2 or 3 surfaces over history. There are more surfaces around; indoor hards, carpet, different types of hard and clay courts. Should be good on ALL surfaces. No exceptions.

4. Quality of play. I look at players to see how good they were, I don't go "just by the numbers". I feel I can spot greatness when I see it but I could be wrong.

5. Peak of dominance. Should have at least one great high in their career. I can't call a player a GOAT even if they win 1 Slam an year for 30 years.

6. A relatively long and sustained Prime. I judge this by their level of play, not their success.

7. Consistency. They should very rarely go out early in tournaments, especially during their prime.

8. Longevity. Should be relevant for at least 10 years. They don't have to keep winning Slams all through but need to have a good showing throughout.

9. Fuel for not just the Slams but the smaller tournents as well. Everything counts, even if it's just a 500, to a certain extent.

10. Good, all-court play with no glaring weaknesses.

That's pretty good!

I guess I would say both Sampras and Feds weakness is clay . Nadal has multiple slams on grass and hards and he went through Frd to get there.

Feds one FO is pretty good but would you put him in the top clay courters of all time? I don't think you can.

Cup8489
10-08-2012, 04:26 PM
That's pretty good!

I guess I would say both Sampras and Feds weakness is clay . Nadal has multiple slams on grass and hards and he went through Frd to get there.

Feds one FO is pretty good but would you put him in the top clay courters of all time? I don't think you can.

Rafa has TWO Wimbledons, ONE AO, ONE USO.

Not GOAT material. You can't have just one major at TWO majors. Even Sampras had muliple slams at 3/4.

The Dark Knight
10-08-2012, 04:28 PM
Rafa has TWO Wimbledons, ONE AO, ONE USO.

Not GOAT material. You can't have just one major at TWO majors. Even Sampras had muliple slams at 3/4.

I agree with that.

Except that what's amazing is that Nadal has missed 6 slams and an Olympics . Somehow he still
Managed to win all of that.

ledwix
10-08-2012, 05:10 PM
Slams > #1 weeks ~ #1 years > WTFs ~ Masters ~ Olympics > Davis Cup ~ other tourneys > Record against main rivals. Record against main rivals is not even an accomplishment in itself. Plus it's not even coherent because "main rival" isn't even well-defined. Does it need to take into account age, ranking, what the actual h2h is, (circular) etc. Seriously, does any player retire who remembers their h2h against ppl MORE than their actual trophies and years at #1? Most ppl don't even remember their h2hs.

Also, diversity of slam resume is big as well. Federer having the most majors at three different majors (with Agassi, Sampras, and Connors) is significant. If some guy won 15 USOs and nothing else, I'd consider Sampras better, all else being equal.

RF20Lennon
10-08-2012, 05:19 PM
For me GOAT = Most Successful Resume in the history of the game. Plays the game effortlessly and makes it look easy and plays beautiful tennis. Great personality, very classy both on court and off. I see this in Roger Federer and In my opinion he is GOAT but thats just me

RF20Lennon
10-08-2012, 05:20 PM
I agree with that.

Except that what's amazing is that Nadal has missed 6 slams and an Olympics . Somehow he still
Managed to win all of that.

But see thats not an excuse. He missed them because he overworked himself and its HIS fault. Its not like he was banned from it like in the case of Laver!

Nostradamus
10-08-2012, 05:35 PM
We all use the term GOAT however it has become painfully obvious that the term
Means different things to different people.

I'm calling on a bi partisan convention to try and come forward with some sort of unified definition of this very vague term.

If we can do that workout schewing the parameters towards ones favorite player then I think the debate will end once and for all......highly doubtful but at least it will be interesting to try.

Any takers?

I think it is Greatest of all time. correct me if i am wrong. It's an illusion. It doesn't exist.

SoBad
10-08-2012, 05:36 PM
I think it is Greatest of all time. correct me if i am wrong

It is also an animal when lamb is sold out at the grocery.

Safin
Kafelnikov
Sampras
Nadal

Cup8489
10-08-2012, 05:39 PM
I agree with that.

Except that what's amazing is that Nadal has missed 6 slams and an Olympics . Somehow he still
Managed to win all of that.

1.5 years of slams in an 11 year career is not that much. Especially considering he caused the missed slams/olympics. Stop trying so hard.

Nostradamus
10-08-2012, 05:52 PM
It is also an animal when lamb is sold out at the grocery.

Safin
Kafelnikov
Sampras
Nadal

How can Safin and Kafelnikov be a GOAT ? one was womanizer and the other was a lazy bumb

SoBad
10-08-2012, 05:55 PM
How can Safin and Kafelnikov be a GOAT ? one was womanizer and the other was a lazy bumb

Safin is a democratically elected legislator who represents the will of his people.

Nostradamus
10-08-2012, 06:16 PM
Safin is a democratically elected legislator who represents the will of his people.

Yea right, it is the will of his hormones, people should be worried about.

SoBad
10-08-2012, 06:17 PM
Yea right, it is the will of his hormones, people should be worried about.

They like it.

Tennis sensation
10-08-2012, 11:42 PM
Goat is defined by the dictionary as
1. any of numerous agile, hollow-horned ruminants of the genus Capra, of the family Bovidae, closely related to the sheep, found native in rocky and mountainous regions of the Old World, and widely distributed in domesticated varieties.

Zarfot Z
10-08-2012, 11:52 PM
"What is the definition of G.O.A.T"

Roger Federer

/thread

tusharlovesrafa
10-09-2012, 12:17 AM
Yea right, it is the will of his hormones, people should be worried about.

LOOL...:razz:

tusharlovesrafa
10-09-2012, 12:17 AM
They like it.

it seems you like Marat!:)

Carsomyr
10-09-2012, 12:30 AM
In the Open Era

1. Number of Grand Slams counts for most, provided they have reasonable success at all Slams.

2. A career Grand Slam or at least multiple Slam finals at Slams they've never won at.

3. Versatility. This is similar to point number 2 in a way but the Slams have covered just 2 or 3 surfaces over history. There are more surfaces around; indoor hards, carpet, different types of hard and clay courts. Should be good on ALL surfaces. No exceptions.

4. Quality of play. I look at players to see how good they were, I don't go "just by the numbers". I feel I can spot greatness when I see it but I could be wrong.

5. Peak of dominance. Should have at least one great high in their career. I can't call a player a GOAT even if they win 1 Slam an year for 30 years.

6. A relatively long and sustained Prime. I judge this by their level of play, not their success.

7. Consistency. They should very rarely go out early in tournaments, especially during their prime.

8. Longevity. Should be relevant for at least 10 years. They don't have to keep winning Slams all through but need to have a good showing throughout.

9. Fuel for not just the Slams but the smaller tournents as well. Everything counts, even if it's just a 500, to a certain extent.

10. Good, all-court play with no glaring weaknesses.

I don't think any GOAT candidacy can be taken seriously without considerations for clothing styles and love of the sea.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 12:34 AM
That's pretty good!

I guess I would say both Sampras and Feds weakness is clay . Nadal has multiple slams on grass and hards and he went through Frd to get there.

Feds one FO is pretty good but would you put him in the top clay courters of all time? I don't think you can.

Federer has 4 or more championships at 3 different Slams. He's got atleast 5 finals at every Slam. And Federer is more of a great on Clay than Nadal is on Hards. Not to mention, Federer is good on every surface. Nadal leaves much to be desired on indoor Hards. And let's not even go into consistency. It almost seems like I chose my points after Federer when it's actually the other way round. That's how much he exemplifies a GOAT.

merlinpinpin
10-09-2012, 12:47 AM
Federer has 4 or more championships at 3 different Slams. He's got atleast 5 finals at every Slam. And Federer is more of a great on Clay than Nadal is on Hards. Not to mention, Federer is good on every surface. Nadal leaves much to be desired on indoor Hards. And let's not even go into consistency. It almost seems like I chose my points after Federer when it's actually the other way round. That's how much he exemplifies a GOAT.

Let's put it this way--Federer is so dominant that there *has* to be a surface GOAT (against whom he's got a bad match-up to boot) in front of him for this discussion to be taking place at all. Many people still give it to Federer over Laver despite the fact that he's had to contend with the clay GOAT during his whole career. Had there been a few years' difference between Federer's and Nadal's careers, it wouldn't even be close and Fed would blow Laver out of the water (and I'm taking Laver's pro career into account).

But yeah, the main points are obviously major titles (doesn't necessarily means GS titles only, depends on the times) on all surfaces and overall dominance. Federer tops both lists, so he's obviously a very strong contender for the title. I still prefer to use tiers, though, but to each his own.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 01:01 AM
Let's put it this way--Federer is so dominant that there *has* to be a surface GOAT (against whom he's got a bad match-up to boot) in front of him for this discussion to be taking place at all. Many people still give it to Federer over Laver despite the fact that he's had to contend with the clay GOAT during his whole career. Had there been a few years' difference between Federer's and Nadal's careers, it wouldn't even be close and Fed would blow Laver out of the water (and I'm taking Laver's pro career into account).

But yeah, the main points are obviously major titles (doesn't necessarily means GS titles only, depends on the times) on all surfaces and overall dominance. Federer tops both lists, so he's obviously a very strong contender for the title. I still prefer to use tiers, though, but to each his own.

THE surface GOAT. On Federer's worst surface. It's sort of interesting to see that Federer is the only guy not named Nadal to win the FO in 8 years. That could be 10 years in 2 years.

above bored
10-09-2012, 03:40 AM
We all use the term GOAT however it has become painfully obvious that the term
Means different things to different people.

I'm calling on a bi partisan convention to try and come forward with some sort of unified definition of this very vague term.

If we can do that workout schewing the parameters towards ones favorite player then I think the debate will end once and for all......highly doubtful but at least it will be interesting to try.

Any takers?
If you think about it, it's even harder to define the GOAT along strict parameters in team sports like football and basketball where you have different positions and other enablers helping support your performance. In those sports people don't try to look for something akin to a neat mathematical formula or tight definition to determine who they think the GOAT is. They take into account all the information and then a popular consensus emerges.

With that in mind, I would define the GOAT to be the player in any given sport who most punters and pundits consider to be the greatest to have played the game, taking into account complete skillset, all the information and all the results. Very few sports have an undisputed GOAT, but a poplar consensus usually emerges. I think there is sufficient knowledge amongst punters and pundits for that to be fairly accurate. I would also say the stronger the consensus, the stronger the claim of GOAT.

kiki
10-09-2012, 04:24 AM
Safin is a democratically elected legislator who represents the will of his people.

Yes sure...in Putin Party

sdont
10-09-2012, 04:25 AM
It is also an animal when lamb is sold out at the grocery.

Safin
Kafelnikov
Sampras
Nadal

Isn't Nadal ahead of Safin now with 28 points? Time to update your file.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 04:52 AM
Isn't Nadal ahead of Safin now with 28 points? Time to update your file.

I have five computers and three printers and cannot print out a single page. What is happening in the world?

SoBad
10-09-2012, 04:55 AM
Yes sure...in Putin Party

You mean the widely popular political figure who brought a wealth of intelligence experience to the high public office?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OFOPd6pgjI

SoBad
10-09-2012, 04:56 AM
it seems you like Marat!:)

I admire Mr. Safin for his contributions to the democratic process.

SoBad
10-09-2012, 04:56 AM
I don't think any GOAT candidacy can be taken seriously without considerations for clothing styles and love of the sea.

I can't print the file.

hoodjem
10-09-2012, 06:07 AM
Number of years as world no. 1 should be part of the equation.

RF20Lennon
10-09-2012, 06:46 AM
Lol this has now turned into a political debate

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-09-2012, 07:17 AM
not his goat ***** again please. don't you guys ever get tired? how many open threads we already have about goat stuff? like 100s.

Yeah, but we need threads like this, so the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) can post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!! You am accept it you troll!" and "Everyone be on steroids except Rogi!!!"

TMF
10-09-2012, 07:37 AM
THE surface GOAT. On Federer's worst surface. It's sort of interesting to see that Federer is the only guy not named Nadal to win the FO in 8 years. That could be 10 years in 2 years.Let's put it this way--Federer is so dominant that there *has* to be a surface GOAT (against whom he's got a bad match-up to boot) in front of him for this discussion to be taking place at all. Many people still give it to Federer over Laver despite the fact that he's had to contend with the clay GOAT during his whole career. Had there been a few years' difference between Federer's and Nadal's careers, it wouldn't even be close and Fed would blow Laver out of the water (and I'm taking Laver's pro career into account).

But yeah, the main points are obviously major titles (doesn't necessarily means GS titles only, depends on the times) on all surfaces and overall dominance. Federer tops both lists, so he's obviously a very strong contender for the title. I still prefer to use tiers, though, but to each his own.


Fed is the greatest hard court and grass(tie with Pete) player of all time. Despite clay is his not his strongest surface, many people on average have him at #7 best of all time. He is the only player in history to win atleast 50 matches in each of the 4 slam events. There's no player that has the most complete resume like Federer. He's like the M. Jordan of the NBA, who is widely considered the greatest basketball player.

Gonzo_style
10-09-2012, 08:25 AM
Fed is the greatest hard court and grass(tie with Pete) player of all time. Despite clay is his not his strongest surface, many people on average have him at #7 best of all time. He is the only player in history to win atleast 50 matches in each of the 4 slam events. There's no player that has the most complete resume like Federer. He's like the M. Jordan of the NBA, who is widely considered the greatest basketball player.

Yeah he is better than Jesus IMO :)

merlinpinpin
10-09-2012, 08:26 AM
Yeah he is better than Jesus IMO :)

Well, he *did* walk on blue clay... :lol:

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-09-2012, 09:32 AM
Yep, the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!!

cknobman
10-09-2012, 09:55 AM
Websters dictionary defines GOAT as:
http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Roger_Federer1.jpg

cknobman
10-09-2012, 09:56 AM
Yeah, but we need threads like this, so the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) can post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!! You am accept it you troll!" and "Everyone be on steroids except Rogi!!!"

Yep, the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!!

Did you somehow find that one post of the same thing was not enough to make your point?????

LOL

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-09-2012, 12:01 PM
Did you somehow find that one post of the same thing was not enough to make your point?????

LOL

It was enough to get you to comment on it, so the smart money says it worked.

LOL, indeed.

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 01:35 PM
In the Open Era

1. Number of Grand Slams counts for most, provided they have reasonable success at all Slams.

2. A career Grand Slam or at least multiple Slam finals at Slams they've never won at.

3. Versatility. This is similar to point number 2 in a way but the Slams have covered just 2 or 3 surfaces over history. There are more surfaces around; indoor hards, carpet, different types of hard and clay courts. Should be good on ALL surfaces. No exceptions.

4. Quality of play. I look at players to see how good they were, I don't go "just by the numbers". I feel I can spot greatness when I see it but I could be wrong.

5. Peak of dominance. Should have at least one great high in their career. I can't call a player a GOAT even if they win 1 Slam an year for 30 years.

6. A relatively long and sustained Prime. I judge this by their level of play, not their success.

7. Consistency. They should very rarely go out early in tournaments, especially during their prime.

8. Longevity. Should be relevant for at least 10 years. They don't have to keep winning Slams all through but need to have a good showing throughout.

9. Fuel for not just the Slams but the smaller tournents as well. Everything counts, even if it's just a 500, to a certain extent.

10. Good, all-court play with no glaring weaknesses.

Anyway, does anybody have reason to argue against my criteria being good enough to judge GOAT-ness?

Gorecki
10-09-2012, 01:53 PM
greatest of all t__ts?

Gonzo_style
10-09-2012, 02:07 PM
greatest of all t__ts?

:lol::lol:

Gonzo_style
10-09-2012, 02:09 PM
Anyway, does anybody have reason to argue against my criteria being good enough to judge GOAT-ness?

What about true Grand Slam? You miss that!

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 02:39 PM
What about true Grand Slam? You miss that!

It's a great achievement, probably the hardest, but I don't think it necessarily says too much about the greatness of a player that the other points don't as far as I'm concerned.

sdont
10-09-2012, 02:42 PM
I have five computers and three printers and cannot print out a single page. What is happening in the world?

People are lazy. The end is nigh.

DolgoSantoro
10-09-2012, 02:48 PM
Lemme guess, THUNDERVOLLEY making a ridiculous diatribe about how Laver is the GOAT since he won the Grand Slam against joke fields with mostly grass surfaces. :lol: All that, even though he is far behind in overall slam titles.

The Former Pro Player section has issued a bounty on your head, just FYI

In the Open Era

1. Number of Grand Slams counts for most, provided they have reasonable success at all Slams.

2. A career Grand Slam or at least multiple Slam finals at Slams they've never won at.

3. Versatility. This is similar to point number 2 in a way but the Slams have covered just 2 or 3 surfaces over history. There are more surfaces around; indoor hards, carpet, different types of hard and clay courts. Should be good on ALL surfaces. No exceptions.

4. Quality of play. I look at players to see how good they were, I don't go "just by the numbers". I feel I can spot greatness when I see it but I could be wrong.

5. Peak of dominance. Should have at least one great high in their career. I can't call a player a GOAT even if they win 1 Slam an year for 30 years.

6. A relatively long and sustained Prime. I judge this by their level of play, not their success.

7. Consistency. They should very rarely go out early in tournaments, especially during their prime.

8. Longevity. Should be relevant for at least 10 years. They don't have to keep winning Slams all through but need to have a good showing throughout.

9. Fuel for not just the Slams but the smaller tournents as well. Everything counts, even if it's just a 500, to a certain extent.

10. Good, all-court play with no glaring weaknesses.
I pretty much agree with this

zam88
10-09-2012, 02:55 PM
My definition of GOAT is if we had a hypothetical best of 99 amongst every player in his prime across multiple surfaces, who would end up with the most wins.

I can't imagine any scenario where Federer doesn't beat almost every player.

And if somehow he lost the best of 99 to Nadal, Nadal would lose his best of 99 to a few other players and thus Federer would still have the most wins.

Nadal would have a lot more 63-36 total wins over opponents, whereas Federer would have more 80-20, 90-10 type of results.


But if you don't like that idea, i'll just go with the most accomplished player... and in the men's game that's Feds.

Unfortunately it seems like the real records only go back about 20ish years.... I mean how can you compare Feds 17 slams to Borg's 11 when Borg only played 3 events per year (25% less opportunity) and didn't have the benefits of modern training to keep him in the game until 30 (way less opportunity).


Here's what I do think though... I think Fed's records hold up a LONG DAMN time. Some of them I doubt get ever matched (23 consecutive semis) or weeks at #1.

Gonzo_style
10-09-2012, 03:01 PM
It's a great achievement, probably the hardest, but I don't think it necessarily says too much about the greatness of a player that the other points don't as far as I'm concerned.

Not for "GOAT"!

RogerRacket111
10-09-2012, 03:30 PM
Goat Bahhhhh

Cow Moooo

Prisoner of Birth
10-09-2012, 03:48 PM
Not for "GOAT"!

Let's say I agree with you that Laver is the GOAT. You're saying the Grand Slam was easy for him?

SoBad
10-09-2012, 05:37 PM
People are lazy. The end is nigh.

Everyone is lazy and greedy, that's the problem. Everyone wants to get off the goat and straight into a 328i...

smoledman
10-09-2012, 05:37 PM
http://www.goatclimb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/401058_3091065401144_1399263103_33212689_139422430 7_n-500x331.jpg

SoBad
10-09-2012, 05:39 PM
http://www.motorstown.com/images/bmw-328i-02.jpg

jokinla
10-09-2012, 05:52 PM
Roger Federer

smoledman
10-09-2012, 06:17 PM
Roger Goaterer.

Gorecki
10-09-2012, 11:45 PM
Capra aegagrus hircus

No1e
10-09-2012, 11:51 PM
But I believe Djokovic will take over in five years.

sdont
10-10-2012, 12:16 AM
Everyone is lazy and greedy, that's the problem. Everyone wants to get off the goat and straight into a 328i...

Do you agree that Safin was lazy and could have won more if he had worked hard?

Is laziness a GOAT attribute?

VPhuc tennis fan
10-10-2012, 07:46 AM
Do you agree that Safin was lazy and could have won more if he had worked hard?

Is laziness a GOAT attribute?

No, it's a SHEEP attribute. Just kidding!
6 pages in this thread and seems to go strong. Somebody must be rubbing his hands and LOL.

VPhuc tennis fan
10-10-2012, 07:59 AM
Meanwhile, Federer never displayed concentrated domninace, as he failed to win the GS, and the one time he squeezed out a FO win, Nadal (the true master of that surface) was not there. That tells history all that is required to know he was not a complete player,and never had the skills to truly beat his competition (thin as it was for the bulk of his majors-winning period).


Not sure why you held the FO09 title Fed won in contempt. Nadal, the true master, wasn't there. Why? Let me guess, he got kicked by Soderling, didn't he? Now that had nothing to do with Fed. Fed did his part which was to make it to the final. Rafa didn't do his homework, did he?
You're gonna say, "Well, if Rafa had been there, he would have crushed Fed". Haa... well, he was NOT. So whoever won that day got to keep the trophy, no? Why the contempt? Otherwise, we can go back to each GS and say, "What if..." At that rate, no player can have one single title, no?

merlinpinpin
10-10-2012, 08:10 AM
Meanwhile, Federer never displayed concentrated domninace in the single season/calendar year, as he failed to win the GS. Further, the one time he squeezed out a FO win, Nadal (the true master of that surface) was not there.

He was, actually. Maybe you should brush up your tennis knowledge, but Nadal was definitely there, seeded #1, at FO 2009. You can find the draw here, although I really think that someone with your (supposedly) superior tennis knowledge should have known that small "detail":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_French_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles

tudwell
10-10-2012, 08:53 AM
To me, the GOAT debate is about determining the most impressive resume of the following qualities (relatively in order of importance):

1. Dominance (including depth of dominance and length of dominance)
2. Consistency (including variety on different surfaces, avoiding early-round losses, etc.)
3. Longevity

There are a handful of people who were quite dominant for a sustained period of time: Laver, Tilden, Federer, Budge, Gonzales, H.L. Doherty, Sampras, Rosewall, and Borg. That's about my order of them, but any single one of them has quite a case to be made on his behalf.

rofl_copter3
10-10-2012, 09:40 AM
OK so say a player is not the greatest on any single surface but top 10 of all time on all of them, does that weigh into the argument?

Nadal is probably the greatest clay courter of all time, but not in the top 15 on hard courts and probably just a bit ahead of that on the grass...

Federer is not probably the greatest ever on any particular surface but is in the top 10 on all three and in the top 5 on two of them...

Laver only truly great on grass tho he did win some on clay and Mac and Sampras couldn't do the clay thing too well...

Borg is honestly the only other person I truly believe had the consistency across all surfaces and honestly I would say the argument should be between Borg and Federer

TMF
10-10-2012, 09:53 AM
OK so say a player is not the greatest on any single surface but top 10 of all time on all of them, does that weigh into the argument?

Nadal is probably the greatest clay courter of all time, but not in the top 15 on hard courts and probably just a bit ahead of that on the grass...

Federer is not probably the greatest ever on any particular surface but is in the top 10 on all three and in the top 5 on two of them...

Laver only truly great on grass tho he did win some on clay and Mac and Sampras couldn't do the clay thing too well...

Borg is honestly the only other person I truly believe had the consistency across all surfaces and honestly I would say the argument should be between Borg and Federer

If it's about consistency playing at high level on all surfaces, then it's Federer.

(grass)Wimbledon: 8 finals
(hard court)US Open: 6 finals
(hard court)AO: 5 finals
(clay)RG: 5 finals
(indoor)WTF: 7 finals

Gonzo_style
10-10-2012, 10:02 AM
[QUOTE=TMF;6946051]If it's about consistency playing at high level on all surfaces, then it's Federer.

Not Rosewall? :)

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-10-2012, 02:04 PM
Not sure why you held the FO09 title Fed won in contempt. Nadal, the true master, wasn't there. Why? Let me guess, he got kicked by Soderling, didn't he? Now that had nothing to do with Fed.

It means for all of the overrating of Federer's majors record (and some even go as far as to lift FO finals runner-up finishes as some sort of creit, when it means nothing in terms of majors dominance), Federer could win his one and only FO against someone who was NOT the generation's greatest FO champion. There's no tapdancing around Federer's luck in that situation.

To the original point, even at his so-called "prime," a period his cheerleaders claim is beyond anythig seen before--they have no explanation for his inability to win the Grand Slam. None--yet they want to say he's the greatest sans a greatest=level performance.

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-10-2012, 02:05 PM
He was, actually.

"Not there" means the finals, kid.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 02:08 PM
"Not there" means the finals, kid.

So it's Federer's fault Nadal couldn't make it past the 4th round. Sound logic there. Federer was more deserving of the French Open that year than anybody else, including and especially Nadal, who was blown off the court by Soderling who got straight-setted by Federer. Suck it up and face the music. Federer won the French Open fair and square.

kiki
10-10-2012, 02:11 PM
If it's about consistency playing at high level on all surfaces, then it's Federer.

(grass)Wimbledon: 8 finals
(hard court)US Open: 6 finals
(hard court)AO: 5 finals
(clay)RG: 5 finals
(indoor)WTF: 7 finals

At first sight, it looks like.

I donīt want to take anything of Federer, nobody gave him those titles for free but...there are so many buts in his career.

1/weak era: meaning we should weighten his titles, and we need to establish a ponderated rating like: 2000īs titles should be divided by 2,5 to equalize with 1970īs or 1980īs.
2/owned by Nadal when matters
3/Rosewall and Laver won many pro slams, that being the true slams all across the 1960īs.

In a way, while I think Fed is a better player ( I saw both and Roger is definitely better), his career looks a better version of Roy Emerson...

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 02:14 PM
At first sight, it looks like.

I donīt want to take anything of Federer, nobody gave him those titles for free but...there are so many buts in his career.

1/weak era: meaning we should weighten his titles, and we need to establish a ponderated rating like: 2000īs titles should be divided by 2,5 to equalize with 1970īs or 1980īs.
2/owned by Nadal when matters
3/Rosewall and Laver won many pro slams, that being the true slams all across the 1960īs.

In a way, while I think Fed is a better player ( I saw both and Roger is definitely better), his career looks a better version of Roy Emerson...

How is it a "Weak Era"? I could just as easily say Laver and Sampras played in equally weak eras. There's no way to substantiate it.

kiki
10-10-2012, 02:20 PM
How is it a "Weak Era"? I could just as easily say Laver and Sampras played in equally weak eras. There's no way to substantiate it.

easy.And this has nothing to see with talent but with the reality of times.

Laver had to face, while winning the GS, multislam champs such as Newcombe,Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Gimeno,Santana,Roc he,Emerson,Stolle,Ashe ,Smith ( and he had also Kodes and Nastase in the fields) and Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade.

Fed faced a very tough Nadal and a very tough to be Djokovic, plus one timers DelPotro,Murray,Roddick ( who also reached a few more finals) and unconsistent two timers such as Hewitt and Safin.

I just think it is quite a weaker competition even if counting on Nadal and promising Djokovic, who has won less titles than Becker or Edberg to name a few ones...

Is it so difficult to assume? I mean you make like apples more than bananas, but if we talk about the shape of a banana, lestīs not pretend apples are also the same shape because it is convenient to us...

Hitman
10-10-2012, 02:22 PM
It means for all of the overrating of Federer's majors record (and some even go as far as to lift FO finals runner-up finishes as some sort of creit, when it means nothing in terms of majors dominance), Federer could win his one and only FO against someone who was NOT the generation's greatest FO champion. There's no tapdancing around Federer's luck in that situation.

To the original point, even at his so-called "prime," a period his cheerleaders claim is beyond anythig seen before--they have no explanation for his inability to win the Grand Slam. None--yet they want to say he's the greatest sans a greatest=level performance.

That can be flipped around very easily into saying that

'Not even the generation's greatest FO champion could prevent Federer from eventually winning the FO title at least once in his career. Federer's incredible consistency eventually trumped Nadal's insane clay dominance, and when Federer was standing on the court waiting for the coin toss to decide who will serve first at RG 09 final, Nadal was out fishing.'

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 02:29 PM
easy.And this has nothing to see with talent but with the reality of times.

Laver had to face, while winning the GS, multislam champs such as Newcombe,Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Gimeno,Santana,Roc he,Emerson,Stolle,Ashe ,Smith ( and he had also Kodes and Nastase in the fields) and Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade.

Fed faced a very tough Nadal and a very tough to be Djokovic, plus one timers DelPotro,Murray,Roddick ( who also reached a few more finals) and unconsistent two timers such as Hewitt and Safin.

I just think it is quite a weaker competition even if counting on Nadal and promising Djokovic, who has won less titles than Becker or Edberg to name a few ones...

Is it so difficult to assume? I mean you make like apples more than bananas, but if we talk about the shape of a banana, lestīs not pretend apples are also the same shape because it is convenient to us...

Let me assume troll-mode and hit you with your own ridiculous "weak-era" argument :

Laver had to face old-guy Gonzales and he lost to him more times than he should have. Federer played old-guy Agassi and won, once he had come into his own. None of the players Laver faced won many Slams. He only had to contend with old-guy Gonzales and "I-can-only-play-on-Clay-but-still-win-on-other-surfaces-because-this-era-sucks" Rosewall. In fact, the only reason the weaklings of the era won any titles was because Laver wasn't good enough to dominate them. None of them is a GOAT candidate. They couldn't even stop a 30 year-old Laver from winning the true Grand Slam! :lol: How can that be a strong era? Total joke of an era.

See, I can do it too :)

The truth is, there's no way to say one era is weaker than the other.

kiki
10-10-2012, 02:33 PM
Let me assume troll-mode and hit you with your own ridiculous "weak-era" argument :

Laver had to face old-guy Gonzales and he lost to him more times than he should have. Federer played old-guy Agassi and won, once he had come into his own. None of the players Laver faced won many Slams. He only had to contend with old-guy Gonzales and "I-can-only-play-on-Clay-but-still-win-on-other-surfaces-because-this-era-sucks" Rosewall. In fact, the only reason the weaklings of the era won any titles was because Laver wasn't good enough to dominate them. None of them is a GOAT candidate. They couldn't even stop a 30 year-old Laver from winning the true Grand Slam! :lol: How can that be a strong era? Total joke of an era.

See, I can do it too :)

The truth is, there's no way to say one era is weaker than the other.

I never meant to troll and you know that I gave you a very reasonable answer.Maybe wrong or right but based on data, while yours is just an angered, bad mannered answer based on the emotion of the moment.

I think you can do better than that:)

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 02:41 PM
I never meant to troll and you know that I gave you a very reasonable answer.Maybe wrong or right but based on data, while yours is just an angered, bad mannered answer based on the emotion of the moment.

I think you can do better than that:)

Your answer is biased at best and silly at worst. It's no more well-reasoned than my post is.

And data? If you go by data, one could easily say this era is tougher because Nadal is (from data) better than anyone from Laver's era. And Djokovic is better than most. Murray might get there, too. There's Del Potro. And then you can factor in Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Agassi (who is again, by data, superior to anyone Laver faced). Your argument is meaningless any way you look at it.

kiki
10-10-2012, 02:47 PM
You're answer is biased at best and silly at worst. It's no more well-reasoned than my post is.

And data? If you go by data, one could easily say this era is tougher because Nadal is (from data) better than anyone from Laver's era. And Djokovic is better than most. Murray might get there, too. There's Del Potro. And then you can factor in Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Agassi (who is again, by data, superior to anyone Laver faced). Your argument is meaningless anyway you look at it.

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70īs whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

RogerRacket111
10-10-2012, 02:49 PM
GOAT Bahhh

COW Mooo

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 02:57 PM
The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70īs whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

I'd argue today's top 4 are major challenges capable of winning any Slam while, back then, the only reason people were able to win was because of Laver's incompetence, not through any skill of their own. Point is, I could argue anything.

How can a player be as dominant as Federer without making his era look weak? The only reason there are so few Slam-winners around is because Federer won so many, leaving so few left to be won. Back then there were so many tournaments going around, the amateur Slams, the pro Slams, there are obviously gonna be more winners with more Slams going about. Doesn't mean it was a strong era. If there were 10 Slams being played today with split fields there would be more winners with more Slams, too. The fields were very diminished. Most of Laver's Grand Slams came against amatuers. He won 14 other Slams, compared to Federer's 17. Still short.

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 03:07 PM
The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70īs whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

And you know what, not to be disrespectful to the past greats without whom the sport wouldn't be what it is today, but I could go one step further and say players back then were nowhere near as professional as today and claim any top-50 player today would school the best of the best from back then because they're way better trained, way more athletic, and are way more developed physical specimen. And I would be right. The level of Tennis in the past 30-odd years has been a level higher than where it was in the 50s and 60s. Rod Laver himself has said 1 Slam today is worth 2 from his time.

NadalDramaQueen
10-10-2012, 03:28 PM
The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70īs whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

The issue with you kiki is that you don't understand the definitions of some of the words you use. If this is just a language issue, then I apologize, but you can see how it throws everyone off when you claim you have facts (or data) to support your claims when you really just give your opinion over and over again about how the current top 20 sucks.

You also only care about the number of slam champions available. This either means there is a more even playing field (more people winning slams) or that people are playing well past their prime and picked up slams before other great players can begin their runs. Either way, it means that the players picking up slams aren't as dominant, or that they only have to face slam champions who are pushing the retirement age. In the past, it was a combination of both. It is hilarious that you use the utter domination of the extreme outliers as a negative, when in fact it is what defines the truly great players.

You also claim to hardly even watch modern tennis anymore (you can't stand it, and you often substitute current finals for clips of former greats), so why do you even post about the current players? You rant and rave about people who didn't watch tennis in the past but then you go and post nonsense about the current players when you will admit that you don't like watching them and you often don't. Take your own advice.

TMF
10-10-2012, 05:38 PM
I'd argue today's top 4 are major challenges capable of winning any Slam while, back then, the only reason people were able to win was because of Laver's incompetence, not through any skill of their own. Point is, I could argue anything.

How can a player be as dominant as Federer without making his era look weak? The only reason there are so few Slam-winners around is because Federer won so many, leaving so few left to be won. Back then there were so many tournaments going around, the amateur Slams, the pro Slams, there are obviously gonna be more winners with more Slams going about. Doesn't mean it was a strong era. If there were 10 Slams being played today with split fields there would be more winners with more Slams, too. The fields were very diminished. Most of Laver's Grand Slams came against amatuers. He won 14 other Slams, compared to Federer's 17. Still short.

He won 6 as an amateur and 5 as a pro, so that's a total of 11 grand slam titles. Obviously the 6 are the weakeast of the 11.

Kiki knows full well Laver benefitted from a small pool and the split fields, and he's just trolling. The only player who was competing in a weak field is Laver. It's weaker than today, 00s, 90s, 80s and 70s. No one would say it with a straight face that tennis and any sports is a spontaneous regression over time . Its absurd !

Prisoner of Birth
10-10-2012, 06:08 PM
He won 6 as an amateur and 5 as a pro, so that's a total of 11 grand slam titles. Obviously the 6 are the weakeast of the 11.

Kiki knows full well Laver benefitted from a small pool and the split fields, and he's just trolling. The only player who was competing in a weak field is Laver. It's weaker than today, 00s, 90s, 80s and 70s. No one would say it with a straight face that tennis and any sports is a spontaneous regression over time . Its absurd !

Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength :lol:

NadalAgassi
10-10-2012, 06:11 PM
Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength :lol:

Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

90's Clay
10-10-2012, 06:32 PM
GOAT
noun
1.
any of numerous agile, hollow-horned ruminants of the genus Capra, of the family Bovidae, closely related to the sheep, found native in rocky and mountainous regions of the Old World, and widely distributed in domesticated varieties.
2.
any of various related animals, as the Rocky Mountain goat.
3.
( initial capital letter ) Astronomy, Astrology . the constellation or sign capricorn.
4.
a scapegoat or victim.
5.
a licentious or lecherous man; lecher.
6.
Something Federer isn't

Emet74
10-10-2012, 06:57 PM
kiki wrote: Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade."

--

Not really; the true Lendl/Becker/Edberg era was pre-Sampras. Sampras era really began in 1993 and of those three only Becker won 1 single slam after that date. Bruguera and Muster were really clay courters and Sampras never came close to winning FO. Krajicek beat Pete.

As for Stich, he only played Sampras three times total 1993 and after, never in slams, the record was 2-1 for Stich in the matches they did play, so no huge feather in Pete's cap.

So in terms of who Sampras was actually beating to win his majors it was Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Kafelnikov, Old Becker and some others like Todd Martin and Pioline. That's not all that amazing a group.

RAFA2005RG
10-10-2012, 07:19 PM
We all use the term GOAT however it has become painfully obvious that the term
Means different things to different people.

I'm calling on a bi partisan convention to try and come forward with some sort of unified definition of this very vague term.

If we can do that workout schewing the parameters towards ones favorite player then I think the debate will end once and for all......highly doubtful but at least it will be interesting to try.

Any takers?

There is no such term as GOAT, apart from the farm animal. There is internet slang abbreviation called GOAT which stands for Greatest Of All Time. However in the real world, its impossible for a tennis player to go back in a time machine and play on the tour of the 1980s and 1960s etc., so there is no way for a player to qualify as GOAT. They would have to play in previous eras to prove it. And that is impossible. GOAT is impossible, and that is why it doesn't exist outside of the internet. On the internet people operate via fantasy rather than fact. The internet covers the whole world, so we see a lot of highly stupid people having a voice and talking about GOAT. According to the real world however, there is no such thing as GOAT.
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/110/677/84577805_crop_650x440.jpg?1294946573

kiki
10-11-2012, 12:52 PM
And you know what, not to be disrespectful to the past greats without whom the sport wouldn't be what it is today, but I could go one step further and say players back then were nowhere near as professional as today and claim any top-50 player today would school the best of the best from back then because they're way better trained, way more athletic, and are way more developed physical specimen. And I would be right. The level of Tennis in the past 30-odd years has been a level higher than where it was in the 50s and 60s. Rod Laver himself has said 1 Slam today is worth 2 from his time.

Well, Laver has 3...

and tennis is much more than just athletic bodies and well trained machines...or at least that is the way I look at it.I am not interested in another way to llok at it.

kiki
10-11-2012, 12:55 PM
Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength :lol:

1969 certainly was.late 50īs would also rank up there as well as almost all of the 80īs...

kiki
10-11-2012, 12:57 PM
kiki wrote: Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade."

--

Not really; the true Lendl/Becker/Edberg era was pre-Sampras. Sampras era really began in 1993 and of those three only Becker won 1 single slam after that date. Bruguera and Muster were really clay courters and Sampras never came close to winning FO. Krajicek beat Pete.

As for Stich, he only played Sampras three times total 1993 and after, never in slams, the record was 2-1 for Stich in the matches they did play, so no huge feather in Pete's cap.

So in terms of who Sampras was actually beating to win his majors it was Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Kafelnikov, Old Becker and some others like Todd Martin and Pioline. That's not all that amazing a group.

No love for Rafter? Bruguera?

tudwell
10-11-2012, 01:04 PM
Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

Come on, no one has ever seriously suggested that Roddick and Hewitt are better than Nadal or Djokovic.

I also don't know why people parade Nadal and Djokovic around as evidence that Federer had a weak field. He's won thirteen slams since Nadal first became a slam champion (more than Nadal has won in that same period) and five since Djokovic became a slam champion (the same number as Djokovic has won in that period).

Prisoner of Birth
10-11-2012, 01:07 PM
Well, Laver has 3...

and tennis is much more than just athletic bodies and well trained machines...or at least that is the way I look at it.I am not interested in another way to llok at it.

Tennis today is skills and athleticism. Back then it was just skills. We might enjoy skills more but athleticism is very important to winning matches, as Nadal and Djokovic are proving.

TMF
10-11-2012, 01:09 PM
Well, Laver has 3...

and tennis is much more than just athletic bodies and well trained machines...or at least that is the way I look at it.I am not interested in another way to llok at it.

No, you're revising history. Laver has 2(1962 & 1969). People don't care much about the 1962 since it was from the amateur. 1969 was still 3 grass and 1 clay.

Athletic and well trained may not be important in the 60s, but today if you lacks any discipline, forget it, you ain't going to be a great champion.

kiki
10-11-2012, 01:10 PM
Tennis today is skills and athleticism. Back then it was just skills. We might enjoy skills more but athleticism is very important to winning matches, as Nadal and Djokovic are proving.

You are right.And while some guys like Laver,Gonzales,Hoad and Newcombe were just as much atheltic as any current player, skill was much more rewarded, just the oppoiste than today.federer is the only guy that mixes up both things in the right way, and if you gave him a wooden racket and a good volley, he would fit perfectly well in the 80īs.

Prisoner of Birth
10-11-2012, 01:11 PM
You are right.And while some guys like Laver,Gonzales,Hoad and Newcombe were just as much atheltic as any current player, skill was much more rewarded, just the oppoiste than today.federer is the only guy that mixes up both things in the right way, and if you gave him a wooden racket and a good volley, he would fit perfectly well in the 80īs.

No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

kiki
10-11-2012, 01:14 PM
No, you're revising history. Laver has 2(1962 & 1969). People don't care much about the 1962 since it was from the amateur. 1969 was still 3 grass and 1 clay.

Athletic and well trained may not be important in the 60s, but today if you lacks any discipline, forget it, you ain't going to be a great champion.

In 67 won the Pro Slam, against some of the greatest ever tennis players.

I agree that discipline and training is basic, but so was in Laverīs time when the top players were clearly fit ( or at least the majority of them).Guys like Emerson and Kodes were great natural athletes, as a few others.

kiki
10-11-2012, 01:17 PM
No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

I donīt dipute the top players are very well trained.You just need to look at Nadal,Djokovic,Murray or Ferrer.Federer is also a natural athlete but is the closest one to the 70īs or 80īs, although the monotony of todayīs game has taken a lot of his potential brightness.

Prisoner of Birth
10-11-2012, 01:20 PM
I donīt dipute the top players are very well trained.You just need to look at Nadal,Djokovic,Murray or Ferrer.Federer is also a natural athlete but is the closest one to the 70īs or 80īs, although the monotony of todayīs game has taken a lot of his potential brightness.

Federer is a great athlete in Tennis terms. What he lacks in raw athleticism he makes up for with heavenly anticipation and remarkable footwork. And, in his prime, he had a lot of stamina and endurance as well.

TMF
10-11-2012, 01:20 PM
In 67 won the Pro Slam, against some of the greatest ever tennis players.

I agree that discipline and training is basic, but so was in Laverīs time when the top players were clearly fit ( or at least the majority of them).Guys like Emerson and Kodes were great natural athletes, as a few others.

Yes, but a Grand Slam is about winning 4 slam titles. The pro major only has 3 tournaments(French Pro, Wembley and US Pro) per year. Added to the fact that the draws consist between 8-14 players(slam has 128 players).

You like to hide negative facts.

TMF
10-11-2012, 01:22 PM
No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

That's just about every experts/ex-players have said about today's players are stronger, faster, more athletic, better trained, etc...

Emet74
10-11-2012, 01:33 PM
kiki wrote:
"No love for Rafter? Bruguera?"

Well I was going off your original list. Yes, Rafter should definately be included as one of Pete GS rivals.

As for Bruguera, I dunno, Pete never went through him to win a GS, and had a losing record to him overall:From wikipeida: Bruguera is one of the few players to have a winning record against Sampras, winning three of their five matches: 1–0 on hard court, 2–1 on clay, and 0–1 on carpet

merlinpinpin
10-11-2012, 10:52 PM
"Not there" means the finals, kid.

No, it means that he wasn't there, ie he didn't take part in the tournament (which he did).

Guess what? If you really wanted to convey the meaning that Federer didn't have to face Nadal in the final, you would have said, well, "... but he didn't have to face Nadal in the final".

Maybe you need to brush up on your comprehension skills, too...

NadalAgassi
10-11-2012, 11:13 PM
Come on, no one has ever seriously suggested that Roddick and Hewitt are better than Nadal or Djokovic.

I also don't know why people parade Nadal and Djokovic around as evidence that Federer had a weak field. He's won thirteen slams since Nadal first became a slam champion (more than Nadal has won in that same period) and five since Djokovic became a slam champion (the same number as Djokovic has won in that period).

Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest and that is the same point Djokovic emerged as a top player for the first time, still only 20 himself. Yeah Federer has been successful since they emerged, but he hasnt been nearly as dominant (of course the ****s conveniently put that down to being way past his prime and a rickety old man starting at 26, the moment he began losing any non clay slams). The same way Sampras was the best in the World for 6 years, but not as dominant relative to Federer, but part of that is he was facing Becker, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, as opposed to Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, and Ljubicic. Nadal and Djokovic provide Federer with just a glimpse of the type of competition Sampras had, and how much harder it is be as dominant with actual fellow greats as competition, rather than just a few very good but not great players.

As for nobody arguing Hewitt and Roddick are better than Djokovic atleast, just take a look at the Hewitt vs Djokovic thread and you will see that is not the case.

merlinpinpin
10-11-2012, 11:15 PM
Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest

Seriously? Can you say that again with a straight face? :shock:

Prisoner of Birth
10-11-2012, 11:23 PM
Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest and that is the same point Djokovic emerged as a top player for the first time, still only 20 himself. Yeah Federer has been successful since they emerged, but he hasnt been nearly as dominant (of course the ****s conveniently put that down to being way past his prime and a rickety old man starting at 26, the moment he began losing any non clay slams). The same way Sampras was the best in the World for 6 years, but not as dominant relative to Federer, but part of that is he was facing Becker, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, as opposed to Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, and Ljubicic. Nadal and Djokovic provide Federer with just a glimpse of the type of competition Sampras had, and how much harder it is be as dominant with actual fellow greats as competition, rather than just a few very good but not great players.

As for nobody arguing Hewitt and Roddick are better than Djokovic atleast, just take a look at the Hewitt vs Djokovic thread and you will see that is not the case.

You lost all credibility (not that you had much to begin with) with your first line. And you conveniently forget Safin, who is probably Federer's most talented peer. Sampras, like Nadal, had to contend with aging greats and, more importantly, a primary rival who was totally off-the-scene half the time.

90's Clay
10-12-2012, 05:46 AM
Seriously? Can you say that again with a straight face? :shock:

I think he meant to say Nadal was a mug on grass until 2007?

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-12-2012, 06:59 AM
Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

quoted for truth.

Historically speaking, exactly where to Hewitt and Roddick--with their overstated rankings--stand as true forces in the sport?

Nowhere, to be honest. They were blink-and-you-missed them in terms of cutting out a major piece of the sport's history, so for Federer fanatics to ever cite Roddick and/or Hewitt as competition of note illustrates how flimsy their "GOAT" claim is....

...that and Federer was not talented enough to win the Grand Slam.

Gonzo_style
10-12-2012, 07:11 AM
quoted for truth.

Historically speaking, exactly where to Hewitt and Roddick--with their overstated rankings--stand as true forces in the sport?

Nowhere, to be honest. They were blink-and-you-missed them in terms of cutting out a major piece of the sport's history, so for Federer fanatics to ever cite Roddick and/or Hewitt as competition of note illustrates how flimsy their "GOAT" claim is....

...that and Federer was not talented enough to win the Grand Slam.

Roddick and Hewitt destroys Nadal at USO 2004 and AO 2005 when Nadal was in his HC prime! :neutral:

TMF
10-12-2012, 09:05 AM
You lost all credibility (not that you had much to begin with) with your first line. And you conveniently forget Safin, who is probably Federer's most talented peer. Sampras, like Nadal, had to contend with aging greats and, more importantly, a primary rival who was totally off-the-scene half the time.

I'm not sure what Fed's detractors are trying to prove. All of these players(NOle,Murray,Nadal,Hewitt,Roddick,Safin,Del Potro,Tsonga, Davy, Haas, Gonzo,Bagdatis,Soderling...) ALL belongs to Fed's competition. They all compete against one another and all of their achievements when Fed was present. Fed won all of his slams by having to go through all of them since 2003(pre-prime, prime and post-prime), and his recent slam title was W this year.

If we're comparing Fed vs. Sampras, or Borg vs. Laver competition then this makes more sense because they each have their own playing field to content with. Sampras had his own group to deal with and so does Fed including the names I've mentioned above.

SoBad
10-14-2012, 05:56 PM
Capra aegagrus hircus

People should work on beefing up their Latin and Esperanto.

SoBad
10-14-2012, 06:05 PM
Do you agree that Safin was lazy and could have won more if he had worked hard?

Is laziness a GOAT attribute?

If this and if that, maybe delicious fried wild mushrooms and pickled herring would grow right inside his mouth - that's what they would probably tell you in Kazan. When it comes to GOAT, it really isn't important if it's 2 or 20 slams. We all know the truth.