King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Murray
A novel way to determine who is GOAT: Pick 2 out of 3
- Thread starter jimjam
- Start date
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
wait a minute.......was the purpose of this thread actually for @jimjam to say Murray?
...
...
...
If this is the case, then I must have been blessed with @Checkmate's power of seeing the future
...
...
...
If this is the case, then I must have been blessed with @Checkmate's power of seeing the future
titoelcolombiano
Legend
It is an extremely stupid spin off - I agree. Just like quoting any stat minus clay.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
There is no haste - the post was very deliberate. All of the stats I posted were meaningless and arbitrary because on (or more) slams were not considered in each group which is a rediculous way to look at slam titles. The ATP don't see the need to issue different ranking points to slam which means a slam is a slam - especially when 'without clay' is the only one ever brought up. I could understand (slightly) if Rafa had won 17 RG but the guy has won all four slams, the only one of the three to win twice on all three surfaces and has made the final at the AO five times, Wimby five times and the USO four times. He has nothing left to prove ''off clay''.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
I agree with you that Rafa has a great career even if you don't count clay, loosing final or semi to great player for that particular surface.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
What you are saying makes perfect sense. Indeed Rafa is one of the few greatest tennis players in history. If you removed clay entirely his career of 6 major titles, and 14 finals would be top 10 open era. He has feck all left to prove.
However in saying these sensible things you are repudiating a straw man argument. (Namely, that he's a clay specialist, a one trick pony, one dimensional, and other such garbage.)
The point being made here is that his achievements are more skewed to one surface compared to two other tier 1 guys whose achievements compare to his own.
This is backed up by simple objective facts.
eg1. 11/17 is more skewed than 7/15 or 8/20.
eg2 Nadal is the only one of the three to have a losing record in finals away from best surface.
finals record on best surface / other surfaces
Nadal 63-10 / 25-31
Djokovic 54-19 / 23-14
Federer 69-25 / 30-22
These points in no way reduce Nadal's greatness or standing as a living fecking legend of the sport. But once the conversation turns to the impossibly high standard of being the greatest player of the last 30 years, and the guys being compared to him are freaking Federer and Djokovic, then yes, I think it hurts his case a tad that he is so clay heavy.
Last edited:
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Good post and I see what you are saying.
The initial motivation was to display that slam distribution is not a meaningful stat (certainly not if you've won them all) and past ATG's are never looked at that way - it is just a simple how many slams did x player win
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Agreed. But I'm not from the "majors-only" camp. IMHO one must look at number 1 ranking, YECs, and lengthy, sustained all round dominance, etc etc etc
titoelcolombiano
Legend
That's a good point - for me GOAThood is about majors and the # 1 ranking (weeks & YE). That is all that is really mentioned in the tennis media when the subject comes up. These stats will generally display level of dominance, consistency and longevity.
Thread is about distribution of slams not about minus clay.
Using GOAT logic deems Einstein an idiot. I mean half the world knows E=mc^ by grade 10 and he'd be toast against the computer literate generation.
Just saying, there is no GOAT. The game evolves, and lots of people play a part in that evolution, not just the monkey currently on top of the tree.
Just saying, there is no GOAT. The game evolves, and lots of people play a part in that evolution, not just the monkey currently on top of the tree.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
You are correct - any my minus clay comments were originally replying to posters that brought it up.
FatFedererFanTurnsSlim
Semi-Pro
I sincerely hope this doesn't end up becoming a Freudian slip when the final results are out.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than both Federer and Djokovic.
-Federer has won 5% of his Grand Slams on clay.
-Djokovic has won 6% of his Grand Slams on clay.
-Nadal doesn't have such a low percentage on any Grand Slam surface.
Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). Federer and Djokovic only have 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>>> 1 Grand Slam on each surface.
Nadal has his Grand Slams more evenly distributed by surface than both Federer and Djokovic. Federer and Djokovic need another Roland Garros titles to have their Grand Slams equally distributed by surface as Nadal.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
No, it can't be used to solve any debate. You can post as many links as you want to pseudoscientific and pseudological publications, but it doesn't make you right.
There is a logical fallacy (a wrong argument) known as argumentum ad populum: to claim that something is true because the majirity of people believe it. "If the mayority of people believe it, it must be true".
The opinión of the mayority is never a criterion of truth. If the opinion of the mayority were an indicative of truth, then the Earth was plane ni the X century since most people believed it.
Facts >>> opinions.
What people vote in this poll is irrelevant for the GOAT discussion
Last edited:
Laver's 62 GS was in the amateur game in which: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Gimeno and Sedgman did not compete. Laver was a much better player in 64, while on the Pro Tour, than he was in 62
Karma Tennis
Legend
IMO, that doesn't matter when discussing things objectively.
A player can only beat who they play against in the playing conditions they are presented with. Regardless of the situation in 1962, Laver completed the GRAND SLAM that year by winning all four Major Titles.
The objective definition of winning the GRAND SLAM is winning all four Major Titles in the same Calendar Year. It does not specify who you played against and who you beat to win it.
Statistics do not factor in the level of competition because that is subjective.
Simple statistical fact, Laver has won two GRAND SLAMS and the only male player to do so in the history of the sport.
(BTW, the minute you start to speculate about Laver's 1962 achievement, you can also start to speculate he probably would have won another GRAND SLAM with all the best players playing anyway. You can come to that conclusion on the basis of his Pro Career. So even then, it's not such a big stretch to presume Laver would have won two or maybe even three GRAND SLAMS.)
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Silly post. Ignores the fact that there are twice as many majors on hard as on clay
Ok, but why does distribution matter? He compensates for dominating one surface, we can argue that it is as difficult as dominating 2 surfaces, considering that you need longevity and have more pressure.
Why is 5W+5USO worth more than 10 FO? I don't see any logical way to determine that. Yes, it's different conditions a bit, but you have more chances to win. You have twice as many chances in a year too, you need less longevity, but you need greater domination.
This is longevity versus consistency argument, I don't see why one should be above the other? And being extra great at one thing could be even more difficult than being very good in two things. I can learn 5 languages and be good at each of those, but to be the best English speaker of all time - we can argue that this is even harder.
Who is more impressive Shakespeare or some poliglot that speaks 20 languages? I can argue both is equally impressive. It's apples and oranges really.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Distribution matters because the vast majority of people who follow tennis think it matters.
You may not agree, but your lonely little voice won't be swaying the goat debate
Karma Tennis
Legend
And so highlights how much more difficult it is to win on Red Clay.
And Rafa has won ELEVEN Roland Garros Titles to date. ! (Over the same period, Roger has won ONE RG, and Novak has won ONE RG)
There is no doubt that Laver's 62 Grand Slam was a great and official achievement. The fact is though, that he himself has said that he would not have won the GS in 62, had the top pro's competed. When he joined the Pro Tour, it took him nearly two years to reach the top of the tour, even though Gonzalez was 35-37 at that time and Rosewall was 29-30.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Rafa is one of the few greatest tennis players ever. And his non-clay resume (6 majors, 14 finals) is an ATG career by itself.
But this is not inconsistent with saying that, relative to Federer and Djokovic, his achievements are skewed to one surface. And this matters, legacy-wise.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I voted for Federer and Novak Djokovic, because I believe that the Serb shall ultimately overtake the Spaniard in popular acclaim and probably slam titles.
Karma Tennis
Legend
Of course Laver is going to say that. But it doesn't change anything from a Statistical perspective. And once he got going on the Pro. Tour he really got going. And then he won another GRAND SLAM at the dawn of the Open Era. That is nearly 50 years ago, and has not been matched by any male player since.
Karma Tennis
Legend
Yes. But Rafa's achievements are skewed to RED CLAY ... the most difficult surface of all. Federer's results are skewed to Grass - which is really pot luck - and Hard Courts which play true all the time.
Red Clay is the hardest surface to master, so in my books Red Clay results rank above the other surfaces. And that is coming from someone who lives in a country that abounds with Natural Grass courts and Hard Courts.
Regardless, if Novak keeps doing what he is doing, he will surpass both Roger and Rafa by the time all three have retired from the ATP Tour.
Djokodal Fan
Hall of Fame
Majority of fed fans who clearly hate Nadal are never going to vote for first 2 options. C'mon OP
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Even if I agreed with your logic, which I don't, your premise is false. Nadal MUCH more skewed towards clay than Federer is towards grass.
Rafa 65% of majors on clay, vs Roger 40% on grass
Rafa 71% of titles on clay, vs Roger 18% on grass
Topspin Shot
Legend
GIGO.
Karma Tennis
Legend
No, you mis-understand. I'm only talking about Red Clay and Grass Tournaments. They are the extreme ends of the sport. Hard Court is the middle ground which is somewhat meaningless to anyone who isn't North American, Chinese, or Japanese.
Rafa's results are skewed to Red Clay. Roger's results are skewed to Natural Grass.
falstaff78
Hall of Fame
Are you just trolling? Re-read my post. It specifically refutes what you have just said.
Karma Tennis
Legend
You only comeback is to suggest I am trolling? LOL.
The numbers you have provided are meaningless in the context of our discussion.
Rafa has been significantly more successful on Clay than he has been on Grass. So Rafa's results greatly skewed towards Clay.
Roger has been significantly more successful on Grass than he has been on Clay. So Roger's results greatly skewed toward Grass
And as an aside, Rafa has been more successful on Grass than Roger has been on Clay.
(And I will repeat what I said earlier, I don't care about Hard Court Results. The players that excel at either end of the spectrum are the superior ones IMO.)
Have a Nice Evening
Similar threads
