GOAT= Slams Total ONLY?

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

  1. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,380
    Bud Collins and Tony Trabert, among some other experts, think so, that Laver is the greatest player because he won two Grand Slams, which they reckon is the ultimate world record in tennis. On the end of the day, after looking at all dates and stats and weighing this and that, and putting all things into historical perspective, and leaving out all wouldas and couldas, the Grand Slam is a decisive achievement, which will be still honoured in 50 years from now.
     
  2. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, If at 64 I am a boy, which status of age do you have at 30? ;-)
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  4. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Except if Djokovic, or someone else, do it again. The total number of major won is similarly a unique achievement, until someone beat it. But what really matter is that, neither the Grand Slam nor the total number of Slam should be used as the sole measure of greatness. That's what casual fan do, because it's too complicated to look further. But self proclaimed tennis expert like us can use a more complicated model.
     
  5. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,245
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    "Best" is subjective, so it is about the subjective opinion of the majority.

    Number of slams and tour finals won, time spent at #1, etc. are all variables affecting the public opinion. Right now there is no real debate (outside of tardism on specialized forums) on who tennis GOAT is.
     
  6. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I am no fanboy that's for sure.
     
  7. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, definitely.

    The deeper our knowledge, the more involved, subtle, and sophisticated becomes the list of measures and the factoring of each.
     
  8. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,380
    But aren't the real experts like them not right? Isn't at the end of the day the simple model the decisive? Are these complicated and subtle lists of measure important in the end of it all, when it comes to a final judgement? The Grand Slam isn't a pure number, its a myth, a simple, elegant, and classic formula of greatness.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  9. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Well, I would certainly say it ranks a lot higher than a mere total of four slams.

    I think it does have a tradition and history, therefore we can call it "a simple, elegant, and classic measure of greatness."

    It kind of like calling Wimbledon The Championship.
     
  10. AngieB

    AngieB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,434
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    I just read a statement in another thread who felt that semifinal appearance results in grand slam events should be considered in GOAT discussions. For the record, I thought that was one of the strangest statements I'd ever read.

    AngieB
     
  11. Fintft

    Fintft Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,725
    Yeah and i.e. to me Ilie Nastase is one of the greatest ever, mainly based on talent.
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, I also agree with urban.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    AngieB, Why strange? The amount of big SFs reached is actually a measure for greatness, of course together with other feats. Federer is highly ranked also for his many big SFs. Also Rosewall must be mentioned as he reached 52 big SFs if we include the pro majors.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Fintft, I agree. Players like Nastase, Santana, McEnroe, Segura, Mecir, Hoad and last but not least Laver and Rosewall should be considered as all-time greats because of their tremendous talent.
     
  15. Rjtennis

    Rjtennis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    1,888
    Slams are a good measurement. I think you also have too look at the surfaces the slams were won on. A great player should be able to win on all surfaces. Like others have said you almost have to have an open and pre-open list.
     
  16. AngieB

    AngieB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,434
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Hi, BobbyOne,

    I believe Ken Rosewall and Roger Federer's are greats without mention of their semifinal appearances. Of course, semifinal appearances are something to talk about in terms of consistency at the top, but in terms of "greatest" discussion, I feel winning the best and biggest tournaments of that time period should be illuminated.

    I think we have enough empirical data available with total tournaments won, grand slam titles won, "pro" major wins, weeks and/or years at number one, Davis Cup wins, Olympic Gold, etc, etc. without having to include semifinal appearances.

    At what point and when was semifinal information included on the menu at the table of GOAT discussion? At a loss here.

    Are we trying to reinvent the wheel including semifinal appearances? Isn't there already a direct corrolation between those who have won the most grand slam or major events and those who have made it to the most semifinals? Is there a historical example of a player who made it tons of semifinals and didn't win a large number of grand slam or major events?

    As fans and observers of the sport, are we weakening the GOAT category by including yet another layered tier of "almost great" player?

    My intent is not to be disrespectful to anyone, but hoping someone can help me understand how semifinal appearance discussion help the GOAT debate.

    AngieB
     
  17. borg number one

    borg number one Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    7,668
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    I agree with you and Urban. It's a special achievement in tennis. I like to refer to it as the "Grand Slam", while referring to the four tournaments that comprise it as "majors". It's still considered to be a ultimate prize in tennis because partly I think that we humans do like round numbers and some order/symmetry. There's something very tidy about winning all four majors in a year to run the table with your opponents. Why the Tour and the AO didn't factor in more during those lean years is a question, but I'm glad that the AO is now a really great major.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2013
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks, AngieB,

    As far as I know counting of major SFs reached was an important measure stick since a long time.

    Jimmy Connors is a player who did not win too many majors but was awesome with his 31 SFs reached. This feat is one of the reasons for his including in the list of the all-time greats.

    Consistency is an important criterion.
     
  19. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I do not disagree with Urban.
     
  20. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    The Grand Slam is the ultimate achievement. IMO, it trumps anything else, but not everything else.

    But I believe that if you pinned Trabert and Collins down and asked them if a player wins only the Grand Slam and nothing else, then would that player be the GOAT? They would answer 'no'.

    IMO, Laver's claim certainly starts with his two (or three) Grand Slams, but it is the totality of his career that is most convincing. Others also have great careers, but having these Grand Slams is the ultimate, separating factor.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, I had meant I agree with both of you! English language difficult language ;-)
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2013
  22. AngieB

    AngieB Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,434
    Location:
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    It just feels odd to reward major semifinal appearances in regards to GOAT discussion when actual tournament wins are a more definitive measure.

    The only time I recall tennis analysts signify the importance of major semifinal appearances was either in context of a quarterfinal or semifinal match in progress. Certainly they were using it in historical context of possible outcomes, but analysts rarely discuss major semifinal appearances during major finals, generally only finals appearances and results.

    But to that end, Jimmy Connors is certainly a prime example where semifinal appearance discussion favors him historically. Given his record tournament wins, but unexpected less grand slam wins, it speaks to his unique ability to penetrate a draw consistently and adds to his GOAT list aura. Agreed.

    AngieB
     
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    AngieB, Federer's impressive streak of big SFs reached in a row was often mentioned.

    I rate 3 (or at the most 4) big SFs about equal to one major won without other top places.
     
  24. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, English difficult language. ;-)
    Auf Deutsche is confusing (to think in), with the verb at the end.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2013
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    hoodjem, Du hast recht (you are right).
     
  26. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    as AngieB pulled it, Connors was a great semifinal force, and it would be unthinkable to talk about the Borg and mc enroe era without him at their level.

    He was so consistent that , when he lost to unheralded french roger Vasselyn at the fourth round of the 1983 Roland Garros tournament, i thought the world was ending...
     
  27. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,661
    Season end finals

    I think you would also agree that Season end finals count. A large part of the Nastase career achievement is that he made the final match in 5 Masters Cups in a row, in the 1970's, winning 4 of the them.
     
  28. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Not to mention WCT finals with all matches best of five and direct elimination
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    AMOF WCT Finals was played like a traditional major
    Difference: reductioned draft
    And no trash match since it was a superchallenge of the world's best
    Masters had many RR matches with a weird tanking record like Lendl against Connors in 80
    Mc Enroe against Teltscher in 81 and Borg the tanking king who threw away 74 and 77 matches against Vilas and his 1980 match vs Gene Mayer
     
  30. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,661
    Wct finals

    In my view WCT FInals are up there with Masters Cups
     
  31. monfed

    monfed Guest

    For me Slam count, slam distribution, weeks spent at #1 and career grand slam are the most important criteria,atleast statistically. Though I consider Fed the GOAT more for the way he plays the game and the way he represents the sport. The media respond favourably to him as well since he speaks so many different languages. The intangibles are heavily in Fed's favour more than any other past great imo.
     
  32. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    He is more handsome than Laver¡¡¡¡:)
     
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,374
    Nah, I think Laver is better looking but I would take Roger's height.
     
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Newcombe was better looking that both

    But Federer looks great on the TV spots.
     
  35. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    His moustache alone won five slams.
     
  36. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Laver has more freckles than Fed and Newk (and his moustache) put together.



    The Rocket is the GOAT of freckles.
     
  37. RF20Lennon

    RF20Lennon Legend

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    7,301
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    See, slam total = consistency. Id rather win one slam for 10 years then 8 slams in 2 years (and retiring). Reason being that my game is consistent and im able to put myself above the rest of the field at least one big event each year. CYGS is AMAZING!! truly! but the thing is...it just shows short bursts. Tennis is a marathon and you have to save energy and form throughout your career. But yeah just my opinion. Which is why i rate Fed over Laver and (CYGS was done when 3 of the 4 slam surfaces were the same).
     
  38. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Tiriac and Kodes follow up Newk in all time list if moustache is criteria
    Next come Orantes mustachoued version ( 71-73) , Riessen,Stan Smith,Fibak and Tomas Smid
     
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The one who is certainly excluded is Roche
    When WCT launched its project tour in 68 consisting of 8 players the press named it " The Handsome seven...and Tony Roche"
    The other seven being Newk,Bucholz,Drisdale,Pilic,Barthes,Taylor and Denis Ralston
     
  40. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,770
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Interesting. But I guess I have a different opinion. Winning the Grand Slam is not just a short burst--it is a year-long burst of supreme effort with zero allowance for failure: one slip and you are out. Start over next year when the odds are the same.

    I would rank a player with two CYGS much higher than another player with 10 slams over 10 years. I believe the former player's achievement manifests a higher peak level, greater domination, and a greater consistency albeit over a shorter period of time.

    We could hypothesize that the latter player was inconsistent outside of the slam wins, and maybe the 10 slams were all on one surface, such that the 10-slam winner was a particular surface specialist and little else.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2013
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Laver three slams just shows great peak play and consistency for 10 yrs (62-71)
    I still concede he was not maybe the best of all in 71 and 70 but he was still unbeatable for some periods in both years
     
  42. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,380
    If there were a constantly rolling ranking system in those days before the invention of the ATP computer in late 1973, Laver would probably have been Nr. 1 for the last time in May 1972. In the WCT ranking 1971/72 they gave points for the last 10 WCT events in 1971 and the first 10 in 1972. Before the Dallas final in May 1972, Laver was the far away leader of the WCT race with 8 tournament wins and over 120 points. In the ATP computer ranking 1974, Laver was still 3rd for while, and at the end of the year still Nr. 4, the oldest with such a high computer ranking at years end.
     

Share This Page