GOAT Discussions

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 28, 2012.

  1. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    But I believe him, especially when he's the one who actually won the 69 GS.

    Recently, Laver said "Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing". http://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/...legend-rod-laver/story-e6frf4mu-1226418545853

    I don't know when Laver said Hoad was the greatest, but that could be outdated.
     
  2. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Sampras didn't get demoted unfairly, he simply was surpassed. You say we treat Sampras' position as variable, but that is not true. Sampras remained where he was; someone else just shot above him by breaking his records.

    The problem with TMF's comparison is that he's talking about people who placed Sampras and Laver at the same level, several years ago when Sampras finished his career. But I don't know who those people are; if he's assuming that we (the posters he's talking to on this board), back in 2002, ranked Sampras and Laver more or less as equals, well he has no basis on which to make that assumption.

    Laver's position is not fixed in stone, by the way; nobody's is. Much of Laver's career was unknown until recent research documented it. And what was known about his pro years was often not appreciated, because there was a prejudice against the old pro tour which pegged it as little more than exos on the road.

    I'm sure you would agree, what we call history is not a fixed thing -- not if we mean interpretation of the facts. Facts are a fixed thing. Interpretation is not.

    Most of the tennis that Laver played has now been documented (although just recently another title was documented on this board); but even if it has been documented, there is more to uncover about those lost pro years that could give us further insight into those champions. And all that will have an effect on how we evaluate their careers.
     
  3. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Thank you for your response, krosero. I honestly wasn't sure of the general opinion of this board and no one seemed to be willing to answer. My question was only to find out if Sampras had (perhaps unfairly) been moved down more spots than necessary in order to account for Federer (which your post clarifies well enough).
     
  4. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    You are incorrect about why Grafs 22 slams are rated over Courts 24. The only reason Grafs 22 slams are rated over Courts 24, is that 11 of Courts came at the Australian Open which not only give her a very poorly balanced record, but the Australian Open back then was a relative joke slam, especialy for the women, and generally had only 2 or 3 of the Worlds top 10 women even playing during the period she won all her Australian Opens. Thus they are only half credited at best, giving Grafs mark the obvious edge. Court managing only 3 Wimbledons on the same surface she won her 11 Australian Opens over illegitimate slam fields, makes her case even poorer.

    As for why Sampras and his 6 year end #1s are rated the best, it is because they are officially listed based on computer rankings which didnt exist before 1975.
     
  5. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    I may have misunderstood your point. I thought you were arguing in tandem with TMF. My bad.

    TMF’s point was that if you once ranked Sampras and Laver on the same level, well Federer has surpassed that level now, so you should be ranking Federer above Sampras and Laver now, instead of moving the goalposts in order to keep Laver as the GOAT.

    In response to that, I said, first, that he has no basis on which to assume what any of us, on this board, thought of Sampras and Laver before Federer came along. If he wants to speak about tennis experts who, ten years ago, did rank Sampras and Laver at the same level, fine; but he can’t assume that we were doing that.

    Secondly, I said that Federer has simply surpassed Sampras, by breaking his records. That seems to be the general opinion everywhere and it was TMF’s assumption, so I was working with that, in my response. But I was not trying specifically to speak for everyone on this board. Hoodjem’s point – echoed by other posters – is that Sampras perhaps has been demoted unfairly, due to all the emphasis on the majors record, when we could actually look at other things like his year-end #1’s.

    IMO Federer has surpassed Sampras, but I think the OP’s making a good point. It should not be viewed automatically as a majors race; there are other things to consider.

    I did not mean to claim that everyone’s opinion on this board is that Federer has surpassed Sampras. In Former Pro there are plenty of champions commonly and variably presented as being on the GOAT level; the most common names are Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer.

    I’m sure you’d have a hard time finding a regular poster in Former Pro who believes that the GOAT discussion is simply about counting majors. If that were the case we’d all be putting Emerson above Pancho Gonzalez, and you know we don’t do that! :)
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    krosero, I had thought that there is agreement widely that Nadal , Borg and Rosewall are the three best on clay. I doubt that Kuerten is among the top three.
     
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Hello tennis fans, Are there more responses to this list after Carsomyr's fine answer?
     
  8. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    The GS today is much harder to win than in Laver's 69, which I never agree his feat should hold against the modern players. I think the 3 slam per year is just as tough as his GS. So when you say the GS today is harder than break Sampras's record(14), whether that is true or not, Sampras still get slighted. Because Fed is asked to do more extraordinary than what Laver did in 69 in order for Laver to get slighted.

    Is Sampras 14 slams is less difficult than Laver's 69 GS? I don't think so. Maybe to the GS today, but not back then.
     
  9. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    Between Laver and Sampras, I believed he got the worse part ever since Roger broke all of his records. Records are like fine wine, it gets more recognition over time as long as no one breaks it. Sampras's achievements are written in stone, but it lost some value when his records got broken, that's holds true for every records in sport. And since Sampras lost many major records, Laver still has his GS, that has no effect on him, but everyone knows that you can't hold the his GS against the modern era because it's apple to orange comparison. As hoodjem put it, Sampras isn't in the goat conversation anymore because of the present of Roger who snatched away his slam record, but Laver remains unchanged in the past year.


    Since Roger/Pete's slam count can't be compare to Laver/Rosewall's slam + pro majors, why is Pete taking a hit because of Roger's won his 15th but Laver doesn't take a hit when Rosewall has 23 majors to Laver's 19. I see a double standard here.

    I only join this forum a few years ago, so obvious I my intention was never meant to say posters in the past 10 years have placed Laver and Sampras in the same league. However, my knowledge was that Sampras was one of the greatest if not the greatest after he retired. Maybe people from other countries see it differently, but not in America. To add, many of Sampras fans who are a Federer fans have lower his goat status.

    When Roger start to dominate, he was always being compare to Sampras, not much to Laver. It's Sampras who was the measuring stick. And since Roger passed him, there isn't any argument between them as to who's the greater player. Laver always have(and always will be use) an argument that he was in a different era when tennis was so much difference, and impossible to compare, regardless if Roger continue to win more slams.
     
  10. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    How could you say Court had a weak field but Pancho didn't? It was in the 60s and 50s so either they are both weak or none of them are weak at all. The WTA was created in the early 70s and tennis started to become more global with many nations beginning to have tennis tournaments, thus attracts more athletes. The men's tennis certain gain strength when the amateur/pro combined(open era). And like the WTA, the the establishment of the ATP expand the sport world wide. Both male/female tennis gain bigger pool + more depth.

    Sampras's 6 years was more significant than Pancho's 8 years #1. Outside of his 14 slams, the 6 years was his biggest feat, and had more impact on determined the list of all time great.
     
  11. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,658
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Excellent point!

    (Pancho should be in everyone's top-five.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, You could accept that Court in the AO had really weak competition in several years while Pancho Gonzalez had very strong opposition in the 1950s (ask Dan Lobb) and 1960s.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, Pancho is in my top 4 together with Tilden, Rosewall and Laver.
     
  14. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest


    The general field Court faced was not at all weak. The problem is the Australian Open, especialy for women, was not a serious slam then, so the fields didnt even show up. Even a weak field is better than the field not even playing.
     
  15. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    I like the fine wine analogy, and yeah, I agree: the longer a record stands, the better it ages, the more recognition it gets.

    You yourself are giving a completely natural explanation for why people still have Laver in the GOAT conversation. Yet on the other hand, you seem to imply that people still have him in the conversation for no good reason at all, artificially keeping him in the conversation when he should have dropped away already. I'm not sure really what you're saying. On the one hand you want to say that we're using some kind of false reasoning or bad logic; on the other hand you yourself describe how it's perfectly natural for unbroken records to maintain or get greater recognition.

    Not sure what you're saying.

    As for Laver not taking a hit by Rosewall, the same way Sampras took a hit from Federer, ok, I can see why you would have questions about that. It's a complex subject although you should know by now that older tennis fans don't simply count up majors and leave it at that. That might be okay when comparing two time eras (Sampras' and Federer's) that are not much different. But we literally cannot do that over long time periods when there's been a lot of change. You have to compare apples against oranges. It's unfortunate but that's the situation.

    If the 4 Slams today are the oranges, you have to compare against the apples of, let's say, the head-to-head tours that Pancho Gonzalez played against various champions in the 50s. You cannot just count up Pancho's two Slam victories just because you want to compare oranges against oranges.

    Unfortunately it's messy.

    By the way, the biggest reason that Laver might be ranked equal to or greater than Rosewall is that Laver has the traditional Grand Slam, two of them. That's just one reason, it's a complex subject.
     
  16. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Among young fans who are less familiar with Rosewall, or not familiar with him at all, Kuerten is one of the names that comes up right after Nadal and Borg. Kuerten, along with Wilander, Lendl. I believe I've seen Kuerten placed as high as #3, by fans who emphasize level of play. Of course I have Rosewall in the top 3, as I'm sure many older fans do.
     
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Laver rated Hoad as the greatest of the pre-open era, and Fed as greatest of the open era, and that if the two played each other, it would be the all-time greatest contest.
    Laver made his picks in 2012.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2012
  18. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,658
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Add Fed, and you have my top-five, exactly.


    (I'm glad to see Tilden entering the discussion. Too often, he gets left out as too early.)
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ...and Borg and Sampras and you have my top seven.
     
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    krosero, good to know that you have Rosewall who has won six times at Roland Garros among the top three on clay.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree that Laver often is ranked first by winning two traditional Grand Slams. Also by his at least 200 tournaments won. On the other hand Rosewall keeps several other records as shown in my "birthday's list". Furthermore Rosewall was handicapped by being banned from GS competition in years of age when Laver was not banned. Laver won his GSs at 24 and 31. Rosewall at 24 and 31 was a banned pro. I guess that Rosewall would have won the amateur GS at 24 against players like Cooper and Anderson. I'm not so sure regarding an open GS. However, Laver did win the GS and Rosewall did not...
     
  22. tomwill65

    tomwill65 New User

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    What about Roy Emerson.TomWill
     
  23. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Intriguing idea about Rosewall winning a Grand Slam around '59. Who do you think would have the best chance of stopping him in '58 or '59?

    Laver reached his first Wimbledon final in '59, so if Ken had stayed an amateur until then he could have found himself taking on a young Laver in a Grand Slam campaign.
     
  24. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Gonzales, Sedgman, Hoad and Segura.
     
  25. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    I meant in the amateur world, if Rosewall had remained amateur.
     
  26. tomwill65

    tomwill65 New User

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    I can remember reading something that Pancho Conzales wrote regarding Lew Hoad they were well in the 5th set of along match i was finding things a bit hard going, on the change of ends i looked over at Hoad and thought he was just starting the match. Hoad and Emerson are two of the great athletes that tennis has produced. TomWill
     
  27. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Oh right, I thought we were talking about hypothetical open fields.

    The best amateurs in 1958 were Cooper and Anderson, and in 1959, Olmedo and Fraser.
     
  28. PrimeChoice

    PrimeChoice New User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    Callisto
    So Pancho Gonzalez is a goat.
    So a goat is like a sacred cow in tennis.
    I have never heard of this term goat in all my years playing tennis.

    SO WHAT DOES G.O.A.T. STAND FOR????
     
  29. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    Today's players are stronger and more athletic than in the 60s. If you watch tennis, all the commentators, ex-players(lendl, Agassi...) have said the same thing. Basketball players are more stronger and more athletic than in the 60s. In those day, they go for layup, but today, they dunk. Sports evolve and I don't understand why people still in denial after faced all the evidences.
     
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    It stands for GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

    The Tennis Channel have determined the top 10 greatest players of all time:

    1 Roger Federer
    2 Rod Laver
    3 Pete Sampras
    4 Rafael Nadal
    5 Bjorn Borg
    6 Don Budge
    7 Andre Agassi
    8 John McEnroe
    9 Jimmy Connors
    10 Bill Tilden
     
  31. PrimeChoice

    PrimeChoice New User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    Callisto
    Agreed 300 evolution has taken over. Still what is a G.O.A.T.
     
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Expert posters laugh at that list
     
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    You are not an expert !
     
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    They threw in Laver, Budge and Tilden to make it credible but it is extremely biassed and you would now that just by having watched tennis a quarter of what I did
     
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    The list has got nothing to do with me.:confused:

    I certainly takes the experts' words than yours, who alwayse been a Fed detractor.
     
  36. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Fed is a definitely third tier and very possibly second tier, I do not understand that you call me a detractor when I have him in such high esteem
     
  37. PrimeChoice

    PrimeChoice New User

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    Callisto
    That list is just a list.

    I could beat Rod Laver.
     
  38. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    That's why no one take you seriously. Even the old-timers.

    BTW, the present of Roger and his success didn't hurt Laver's that much as it hurt Sampras goat claim(I've already explained this). Had Roger never existed, Sampras still has all the records and The Tennis Channel could have place him ahead of Laver.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree but I believe that noone would have beaten a 1958/1959 amateur Rosewall. Rosewall was very strong in the second part of 1956 and the best amateur when he turned pro. But I fear that Dan will contradict...
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki is much more an expert than the "experts" who made that moronic list. Do you really think that Gonzalez deserves the place 22???. Learn history!
     
  41. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,049
    If you disagree, fine. Don't get mad if casual fan like you and kiki don't like Fed was listed at #1.

    LOL on the bolded part.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    It's not so much because of Federer's first place. It's because of the places of Emerson (ranked ahead of Rosewall!) and of Gonzalez who in reality should be ranked among the top five, not twentytwo!

    Using that senseless "logic" you also could rank Spadea ahead of Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez...
     
  43. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,065
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    The best amateur at the time when Rosewall turned professional, was Hoad. Hoad had a dominant 1956, but missed out on the Grand Slam. Hoad decided to bide his time a bit longer in the amateurs, and his form in 1957 was a little worrying until he won 1957 Wimbledon in dominant fashion. He then turned professional himself.
     
  44. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    If Rosewall had been the best amateur, he would have been the hottest ticket on Kramer's list, but Hoad was always Kramer's number one target for a pro contract.
    Always follow the money. Every good researcher knows this.
     
  45. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Nobody takes YOU SERIOUSLY.Because you have very limited experience and vision of the game.And you think you know it all while giving the most absurd arguments.
     
  46. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Bobbyone,

    TMF is a spoiled child that, once he discovers the world is not pinky pink as he had imagined, and there was life, and much more exciting life in times he can only dream of, he gets angry and frustrated.He will eventually mature and laugh at his own former opinions, just as we had to go through that some time in our lifes.

    Thanks anyhow for your support.We may disagree, but at least share some basis.
     
  47. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Mustard, I must strongly contradict. Rosewall was clearly the best amateur in the second half of 1956: He won the US Championships over Hoad, he won many tournaments, twice beating Hoad in Australia while Hoad could not beat Rosewall. Muscles won eight tournaments in that period and Hoad won two.

    Of course if we consider the whole year Hoad was better. But we discuss the actual strength when Rosewall turned pro.
     
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, every good researcher knows that Rosewall dominated all months after Wimbledon. Look Sutter's book!
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  49. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    Well, after reading some of your posts i will grant you this....you are at most a seventh tier expert :twisted:
     
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,658
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Moi aussi.
     

Share This Page