GOAT= Slams Total ONLY?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Apr 15, 2013.

  1. フェデラー

    フェデラー Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,423
    Yes because winning something for your country is comparable to winning something that only brings real glory to yourself. Obviously they would choose the gold because they did not win it for themselves, they were representing their home nation.
     
    #51
  2. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Ahahahaa you wish. I just love how Federer comes back and wins Wimby and puts his detractors like yourself back into your armchair. That's the fun part for me,proving time and time again that his slam count is here to stay and certainly not a disgrace that is Nadal to break it. What an utter scandal it would be if Nadal overtakes Fed by padding his slam count with cheap RGs.

    Oh and a one trick pony like Nadal can never be GOAT. NEVER,not in the eyes of the sane anyway. I feel sorry for Federer haters like yourself, all you have is a one-dimensional moonballer to save you the blushes. :oops:

    PS: Hoodjem, if Laver is the GOAT then so be it. I'm sure he was a great player back in the day and he can stake his claim to be GOAT. What's most important for me as a Federer fan is that Roger has tremendous respect for Laver and the affection isn't one sided. They're both class acts which I admire and it's great for the game.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 16, 2013
    #52
  3. monfed

    monfed Guest

    Don't bother, Fed haters/detractors will take one thing and call it something else. It's crap but what's most important is that honest fans like you and I can see right through it.
     
    #53
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I disagree: The sportsmen and women not only play for their country's honour. They also fight for themselves.
     
    #54
  5. The-Champ

    The-Champ Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,541
    Location:
    Sweden
    How about someone who was beaten 19 times by a one "trick pony"? :D
     
    #55
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Yes I loved those classic non sanctioned events such as WCT Forest Hills,Diamonds Racket you mentioned,Brookline Masters,Michelib,Pepsi,Moolson or Suntory
    Defined Golden Era
     
    #56
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Ever watched Gomez or Korda? Doubt it
    Rosset had the biggest serve for a while and a FH as good as Pete
     
    #57
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Very true.Amen
     
    #58
  9. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,642
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Agreed. Indeed they do respect each other greatly.

    (I think Laver is very honest about what Federer has achieved. I believe that Fed would be amazed if he could've seen what Laver could do with a wooden racquet back at his peak--with that power, spin, and placement.)
     
    #59
  10. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,579
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    Nadal a one-dimensional moonballer? Do you know tennis well at all? Have you played it seriously ever? Moonballer? No. One dimensional? Wrong again. Very special player. Even at about 14 or so, you'll see it happen with Nadal. He'll be the next great thing..the latest and the best..too much money is riding on the entire industry needing to latch onto and market Nadal (if Federer is off the stage and no longer winnings majors). Take off your rose tinted glasses Monfed. I'm not a "Fed Hater" either. He's an awesome player and a gentleman. He's not perfect but no player is. He has some weaknesses just like other all time greats do. He's one of the greatest ever, but his fans are bound to be shocked when they see him eventually discounted just like the other greats are while marketers move on with the "Tennis Channel" effect. There is too much money riding on them being able to convince tennis fans that what they are watching NOW is in fact the very best tennis EVER played by the greatest tennis player ever. So, as Nadal climbs the mountain again and starts winning majors, he will be a candidate for that imaginary mantle. If Federer exits, many interests (racquet companies, ATP tourneys, Tennis Channel, Nike, Babolat, string companies, etc., etc.) will look for ways to keep fan interest. So, Rafael Nadal will get a lot of attention as the "heir apparent" and the talk will be, perhaps it's Rafa Nadal that is the "greatest ever"..and we MUST be watching the best tennis ever played as tennis "continues to evolve".
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2013
    #60
  11. Goosehead

    Goosehead Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,446
    Location:
    A bloke in Brighton, England.
    don't guess what I have and haven't watched..and I only used those players as examples of lesser players who were not lucky to win..they won because they deserved to win.
     
    #61
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Great post Borg number one
    It is all about money and corporations
    They would not make money by promoting Laver or Borg as GOATS
     
    #62
  13. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,642
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    It's settled: the history of tennis is way too complicated to sum up by a single measure of slams won.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
    #63
  14. フェデラー

    フェデラー Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    2,423
    Almost like how the history of tennis is way too complicated to compare players from vastly different generations...

    and yet we still try to do it anyway.
     
    #64
  15. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,642
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    True.

    That allows us to debate and argue and pontificate about our favorite players' records and abilities--in other words, to have fun.

    "Where's the fun in dealing with facts?"
     
    #65
  16. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    hoodjem how do you compare open era slams to pro majors etc...?

    Do you count them as the same?
     
    #66
  17. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,642
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I count them pretty close, (except for maybe the AO for while), because we are talking about the world's best players--maybe not as many rounds, but the highest competition possible. And the fact that the pro majors were the most significant and prestigious tourneys for them.

    So during the era of the split, the amateurs had the traditional slams and the pros had their "pro majors." I would regard WTFs as just below that level.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013
    #67
  18. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Do WTF's count as majors then to you? If it's the worlds best players then surely the big masters count too?
     
    #68
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, the pro majors were regarded by the pros as their main events while the master tournaments are regarded only after the GS tournaments.
     
    #69
  20. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    hoodjem said it's who was playing. That's why I asked.

    Either way an Open Era slam should be worth more than a pro major.
     
    #70
  21. cristiano

    cristiano New User

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    84
    Does the slam count determine the Goat? Of course not, no one knowing just a bit of tennis history can claim that.

    In recent tennis? In recent tennis Majors are not the only ones, but their importance is very very high.

    But slam count is not determining even slam ranking :)

    For obvious reasons (different opponents is the main, but not only one) it's very possible that one player has been better than another one in majors even with less majors won.

    Do numbers count, besides any other interpretation or consideration?

    In my opinion, as a guideline, we can just say that it' s very unlikely for players whose career started after 1988, one player is better than another one who won more than one and a half of his major titles

    For all the rest, there is space for discussion.
     
    #71
  22. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,642
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Does winning the (CY) Grand Slam (by itself, only and exclusively) create the GOAT?

    I would offer that it might be the most significant single criterion, but not the only one. And that, by itself, it cannot outweigh all the others.



    Total of slam majors counts.
    Years at world no. 1 counts.
    Longevity at top-level counts (in top-5).
    Degree of domination counts.
    Statistics for the career counts.
    Total of Master 1000 (or equivalent) titles counts.
    Total tournament wins counts.
    (And others I can't think of right now.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
    #72
  23. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    No.

    Federer > Laver. He faced Nadal, the greatest single-surface player of all time, in the FO final, thus being unable to complete the CYGS. The same fate would have befallen Laver had he faced Nadal in the FO final.
     
    #73
  24. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    According to one poster, winning the CYGS is the only criteria that matters and everything else is irrelevant.

    :shock::shock:


    But let be realistic...there's many criteria. One can include Lendl 8 straight USO finals; Fed's 5 straight Wimbledon and USO titles; Evert 34 slam final appearances. These are VERY difficult to duplicate.
     
    #74
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    I think it's unfair to hold the standard against Federer and all the modern player. Comparing the GS in 1969 to today is not an apple-to-apple comparison. But even if it is, that's only one criteria, there's a lot to be consider.
     
    #75
  26. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,351
    Where is the other thread on this issue?
     
    #76
  27. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,999
    Who knows. Someone probably have asked to the mod to deleted because he doesn't like it.
     
    #77
  28. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,269
    ...and it is a feat anyone can accomplish; anyone playing long enough can collect many majors, but it is not a marker of supreme domianace.
     
    #78
  29. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    I don't agree that it is the most significant criterion, because it is only the indicator of supreme dominance for one year.

    If Laver had only won his open Slam and no or few professional major, I would probably consider him as an inferior player to the Connors or Lendl tier. That's because I would consider that the fact that he was able to win only one year is a strong hint that there was a bit of luck in the feat. The more a feat can be repeated, the less likely luck is involved.

    With Laver howeither, he has proven for several years that he was one of or the best player in the world. That is a solid hint that luck is marginally involved in his calendar Slam. Thus, despite having slightly less total majors than Fed and Rosewall, he is in the mix for goathood.
     
    #79
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Bizarre, so winning the biggest thing is luck?
     
    #80
  31. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Laver has won more majors than Federer.
     
    #81
  32. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    If you can't win a major or two at another occasion, I think it's a good hint that you had a bit of luck AND that this feat is thus not enough to dub you GOAT in front of other players who don't have the calendar slam, but have 3 time more slam than you do.
     
    #82
  33. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    BobbyOne, you know that I don't agree with you on the status of amateur majors in comparison with other majors. I consider that the absence of Rosewall, Gonzales, Segura, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Olmedo, Cooper relegates these amateur slam to oblivion (current 500 or even 250 category). Winning RG in 62 is not equivalent at all to winning the French Pro in 62.
     
    #83
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, I understand. I just forgot your opinion. I also say that amateur GS tournaments are less important than open and pro Slams.
     
    #84
  35. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    He hasn't. I'm sorry but amateur majors barely count as majors at all. Federer's 17 grand slams and 6 WTF's finals put him ahead of Laver and IMO Rosewall as well.
     
    #85
  36. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Federer is ahead of Laver (although Laver still has a claim for GOAT).

    Both these giants are well ahead of Rosewall.
     
    #86
  37. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I meant ahead in number of majors. I flip flop between Laver and Federer as the GOAT. But I agree both are superior to Rosewall.
     
    #87
  38. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    Yeah right but if you count like that, you compare the resume of Federer who played 5 majors events each years with the resume of Rosewall and Laver who played only 3 majors event each years (even two for Rosewall in the early 60's).

    From my count (which doesn't include the amateur slams or the depleted AO), Rosewall has 18 majors and Laver has 14. This count is probably not perfect because it considers all the pro major as full majors (most prestigious tournament of the year), which was maybe not the case, and discounts others tournaments which may have been one of the most important tournaments of the year (and thus should or could be considered as majors).

    The more limited draw of the pro majors is not an important problem for me as it is clear that Laver and Rosewall were the two best players of the 60's by a huge margin. The pro players who ere not seeded had really no chance to beat them (such as Ayala or Davies). Adding more player of this caliber wouldn't have had any bearing on the final result.
     
    #88
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, I agree widely. Carlo Colussi has made an interesting list of the actual biggest pro majors.
     
    #89
  40. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    My position has always been to consider the majors counts of all 3 of them to be roughly comparable due to these differences. The initial response I made was against BobbyOne once again equating amateur majors as open era slams, and stating Laver has more majors than Federer.

    As far as tournaments go I think pro majors having a smaller draw has to put them bellow open era slams. Impossible to know how well these journeymen could have played if given the opportunity. Lower ranked guys have pushed the top guys of today's era before. Today even a played ranked 100 like Rosol can get hot and start bashing balls exceptionally well.

    Some masters tournaments have all the best players in the world. Look at Rome in 2006 for example, was anyone going to stop Federer or Nadal that tournament? The final was a best of 5 sets and despite it not being a slam and they both clearly played all out to win it. Yet it's still not a major. A grand slam has more rounds, a deeper field and still has all the top players in it. It therefore weighs more than a tournament which has only 2 of those. Even if the difference isn't a huge one...

    I recognise that Laver and Rosewall had less majors to contend for though.
     
    #90
  41. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    Thanks for your answer. I share most of you view, except for the bolded part. We use major to compare players from different era because we consider that it is a great indicator of who are the best players in the world: Few prestigious event, for which every top player give his best. That is not the case for the master 1000, because in some of them, some top players don't really mind losing early.

    I think the pro majors, as the open era majors, are the best indicator of who the best players were at the moment. And the answer is clear: Laver and Rosewall. It may be that they would have suffered one or two upset and thus lost one or two majors titles. But it is the case for the current pro too, if they had to play in a smaller draw, meeting earlier the second tier players. What would have happened to Nadal if he had met Tsonga instead of Chardy in the R3 of Wimbledon 2010?

    I don't think that if in the future the draw of the slams is extended to 200 or more players, it will make the current slams a lesser indicator of the best current players.
     
    #91
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Once more I agree. It might be interesting that Laver and Rosewall won all 15 pro majors from 1963 to 1967 and that even though there were some very strong opponents, i. e. Gonzalez, Hoad and Gimeno.

    The two Aussies also won 8 out of the first 10 open era majors where they participated even though they were old (Rosewall) and rather old (Laver) then.
     
    #92
  43. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I see your point. The masters example was perhaps not the strongest point. How would you compare players such as Rosewall and Laver with Federer/Sampras etc...then?

    Do you see no distinction atall between pro majors and the slams?

    No one is disputing that Laver/Rosewall were the greatest players of the 60's, however to say that because they have more combined amateur, pro and open majors they are superior to Federer (who was competed in full fields for all his majors) is wrong. I'm fine calling their number of majors comparable, although I would give the nod to Federer if pressed.
     
    #93
  44. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    I don't really understand how you make the comparison between players of different eras. Are all the all-time great who played under different conditions out of the competition?
     
    #94
  45. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I flip flop on this, on the one hand playing conditions have changed so much it's very difficult to compare. I do think broad comparisons can be made. I think that within the Open Era and especially the last 20 years it is possible to make some comparisons. Although it's still blurry.
     
    #95
  46. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    I agree. I like to make comparison, but I'm always doubtful considering my own ranking. I know very well that there are a lot of variable that I ignore or don't know. Thus, it is possible that my ranking is "wrong".

    But here you are comparing Federer with Laver and Rosewall. If the pro majors can't be counted at full value, even despite the fact that there were only three of them, then how do you compare them. Have you the premise that Federer is better because he is more modern?
     
    #96
  47. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Only fanboys would put Rosewall as GOAT.
     
    #97
  48. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,192
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Am I really comparing Federer with Laver/Rosewall? I disagree that Laver and Rosewall have more majors. I think if we're going to be tallying them up and discussing who's are better I'd go with Federer. However I'm fine with saying they have comparable records in singles competition. I don't place Federer higher than Laver on a GOAT scale, I do however put him higher than Rosewall. We can't speculate on how many majors either would have won had their been 4 majors. There might as well only be 3 majors with the way Nadal plays at the FO lol.

    I don't think the difference between era's is that great, Agassi is a good example of that. But I think the greats of past era's would find it harder to play in today's conditions than say Federer would in there's. Rosewall would struggle to create the power necessary in today's game for example.

    I rank based on relative achievements, and I do rank peak play somewhat when it gets close between two greats as subjective as that may be. TBH I think if we're going to be doing rankings, then there should probably be two lists. One pre open era and one open era. Federer sits at the top of the open era rankings, Laver in my mind is the greatest of the pre open era greats. Those are therefore my top 2.

    My major gripe with the Rosewall praise is that he's only ranked 6th by Laver out of just the old players. If that's how Laver ranks him after playing him 150 times or however many then I find it hard to place him next to Federer or Laver himself.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
    #98
  49. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,091
    Very good points. I agree that sticking too closely to the major count is not the right way to compare players. It's better to use this measure, along other measures, to assess success in single competition. In that regard, I consider that Rosewall, Laver and Federer are the three players who have the best record. I should maybe include Gonzales and Tilden, but I lack knowledge to do so.

    It's also true that we can't speculate on their success if their had been 4 majors. Borg gives a great example. Based on his success at RG and Wimby, we would be certain that he would dominate the US Open as well, especially on clay and grass. I agree as well that with Nadal, the other players compete to reach the SF or the final at best. But I'm certain that if a fourth major was available in the sixties, only Rosewall and Laver would have a shot at it (they had a huge margin on the others).

    I too can see Federer having success in any conditions because he has proven that he can do everything on every surfaces. That's not the case of others top players though. Nadal's skills are all geared toward a baseline grinding game, with heavy spin. I can't say that he has really showed that he could have success without so much spin, and slow/high bouncing surfaces. I think that is true with Murray and Djokovic as well, or any player who hasn't displayed all-court skills.

    On the other hand, if the current trend of continue, I can imagine people considering in twenty years that Federer lacked athleticism, power, etc. Actually there are already some teens who think have discovered tennis with the AO 2012 finals who thinks that he is a has been! A player should only be judged for his ability to play in the condition he faced.

    Yes, that's something to consider. But maybe Laver was too focused on a short time span when he ranked Rosewall, or too focused on his peak play. Rosewall didn't had the same dominance than Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer. But he played so long at such a high level that he was still able to win a lot of majors. I think the longevity and consistency is always underrated when ranking players. Lendl and Connors suffer from this.

    In definitive I agree with you, except that I still think Rosewall deserve to be in the same tier as Fed and Laver. Great post.
     
    #99
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,642
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, I know. I feel that that position is just too extreme.

    If Laver had won only the Grand Slam, then he would not be part of the discussion. I believe that it is the rest of his record and achievements that make him a GOAT.
     

Share This Page