Is it possible to have a discussion ...

[BluBarry]

Related to what might be considered the GOAT without reference to their accomplishments ?

For years now I and probably all of you have jumped into Threads about the GOAT with absolutely no conclusion what-so-ever. In determining that question, most elect to list their selected Player's accomplishments only to have someone else make claim that their accomplishments may have been different if the field was stronger or if their Player wasn't injured or if they were given an opportunity to play during another time period, etc etc on & on to even a point where some simply refuse to acknowledge the accomplishments listed.

I tend to lean towards a Player's style of play regardless of the accomplishments. For instance, I recently read in a thread here that Yevgeny Kafelnikov is said to be considered one of the most fluid strikers of the ball Tennis has ever seen. One person even went as far to say, his on Court ability was better than that of Andre Agassi's. Many believe Stefan Edberg was probably the greatest S/V Player in History while others think it was Pete Sampras. Others may point out the although Andre Agassi didn't amount the number of titles others have but the fact that he so far is the only man in the Open Era to win all four Majors plus the Gold Medal is a significant achievement and could be considered the GOAT.

This may not work and most likely will not work but I would love to read a consensus that based upon an agreed upon criteria, we actually conclude that This Guy and This Lady were the GOAT.

 

[VGP]

Impossible, meaningless, and stupid to not include a player's accomplishments.

Rankings, titles, Davis Cup/Fed Cup, etc. give tangible evidence to a player's ability over his/her peers and consistency over their time on the pro tours.

If we ignore accomplishments, then Mansour Barahmi would be the greatest.

 

[8PAQ]

If we did that then Safin would be the GOAT.

 

[Max G.]

But IMO, "strokes" and "prettiness" are irrelevant to the GOAT discussion. Having good strokes is just a means to an end - the end goal is to WIN, and what matters is how good they are at doing that, not how they get there.

 

[Andres]

I don't believe a GOAT may be considered by the titles and ammount of GS titles, because they all lived in different eras.

Rod Laver won the GS twice, but there's no way he could beat Pete Sampras, even playing with wooden racquets, so IMO, Rod Laver CAN'T be the GOAT (which stands for Greatest Player of all Time, not More Acomplished Player of all time).

Borg with modern racquets could probably rivalize Nadal's today, because their styles matched up pretty well, they're both very similar, but Borg was faster, and had better endurance.

IMO, the greatest player of all time, skill wise, tennis wise, and technique wise, is between Borg, Sampras and Federer.

And no, I'm not a Federer Fan
And no, I'm not a Sampras fan.

 

[Swissv2]

then are you.... a borg fan?

 

[Andres]

then are you.... a borg fan?

Shhhh, don't tell anyone...

NOOOO, OF COURSE NOOOT!! :mrgreen:

 

[angharad]

I think you need to include accomplishments as part of the criteria, but it's not everything. Comparing the competition and technology of one era to another is virtually impossible.

But you can't just judge on raw talent, or style of play. Part of being the greatest is being able to put it all together (and hold it all together) when it counts. You can be the most talented player in the world, but without the discipline and mental strength you need, you'll never be a champion.

 

[Phil]

Related to what might be considered the GOAT without reference to their accomplishments ?

For years now I and probably all of you have jumped into Threads about the GOAT with absolutely no conclusion what-so-ever. In determining that question, most elect to list their selected Player's accomplishments only to have someone else make claim that their accomplishments may have been different if the field was stronger or if their Player wasn't injured or if they were given an opportunity to play during another time period, etc etc on & on to even a point where some simply refuse to acknowledge the accomplishments listed.

I tend to lean towards a Player's style of play regardless of the accomplishments. For instance, I recently read in a thread here that Yevgeny Kafelnikov is said to be considered one of the most fluid strikers of the ball Tennis has ever seen. One person even went as far to say, his on Court ability was better than that of Andre Agassi's. Many believe Stefan Edberg was probably the greatest S/V Player in History while others think it was Pete Sampras. Others may point out the although Andre Agassi didn't amount the number of titles others have but the fact that he so far is the only man in the Open Era to win all four Majors plus the Gold Medal is a significant achievement and could be considered the GOAT.

This may not work and most likely will not work but I would love to read a consensus that based upon an agreed upon criteria, we actually conclude that This Guy and This Lady were the GOAT.

By your criteria, Marcello Rios, a player who didn't win a single slam, would be the GOAT, or close to it. Or maybe Petr Korda?

Unless Federer wins a calendar GS, wins a total of 18 or so majors, and is #1 for 7 consecutive years or more, there will not be a consensus on GOAT on this board. However, one thing that just about everyone agrees on-other than you-is that a player's accomplishments are the primary quantitative-the ONLY quantitative-element considered in making the very subjective determination of who is the GOAT.

The "G" in GOAT means a player has/had not only the strokes, but just as important, the mental toughness, to win the biggest titles, against the best players. Take that away and nice strokes or ball striking ability mean very little.

 

[drakulie]

Noah is the greatest because he had chacracter and a great haircut!

 

[BluBarry]

By your criteria, Marcello Rios, a player who didn't win a single slam, would be the GOAT, or close to it. Or maybe Petr Korda?

Unless Federer wins a calendar GS, wins a total of 18 or so majors, and is #1 for 7 consecutive years or more, there will not be a consensus on GOAT on this board. However, one thing that just about everyone agrees on-other than you-is that a player's accomplishments are the primary quantitative-the ONLY quantitative-element considered in making the very subjective determination of who is the GOAT.

The "G" in GOAT means a player has/had not only the strokes, but just as important, the mental toughness, to win the biggest titles, against the best players. Take that away and nice strokes or ball striking ability mean very little.

To be quite honest, I also think a Player's accomplishments have to be the foundation of any conversation regarding the best or greatest. But if everybody thinks that way, why in the World have we not been able to agree who fits that discription ?

People are already saying Roger is the Greatest. Based upon what ? Well now he has a destinctive accomlishment in winning 3 & 3 but still he is far behind Sampras in total amounts. And hasn't even accomplished what Agassi has in variety. So why is he in the running ? Of what we think he's gonna do? Heck, that doesn't count or at least it shouldn't count. But I would love to see a majority of people say, "Ok there we have it, we agree that ___is the GOAT thus far".

For me it's between Sampras - Laver - Borg and no way am I going to bring up Steffi vs Martina vs Monica vs M.Court.

 

[alienhamster]

Blubarry, I like the thread question. It's always good to get at what lies underneath an argument, and targeting the criteria is a good way to go.

But I agree with pretty much everyone else that accomplishments absolutely do matter. I might even claim that it's the only barometer that really matters. But then I think about some of the intangibles like who really changed the dynamics of the sport, who brought people into it, who had stellar sportsmanship and love for the game, who used their wealth and influence for good, etc. So the criteria, for me anyway, can get fairly expansive and complicated.

But then there's the converse (or inverse?) of your question: is it possible to judge GOAT without recourse to judgments about quality of strokes on the court? So, let's say Andy Roddick wins 15 majors in the next 5 years on current form. Is it possible for anyone who thinks his game is incomplete and ugly to also claim he's the GOAT? Unlikely, I'd say.

 

[superman1]

I can only go by my gut feeling. If I had been around to watch and study every great player since the invention of tennis, then I could give a better answer. It goes beyond # of Slams and dominance, since the eras were all different. So GOAT is either a stupid acronym that means nothing, or it is a complex measurement scale that will tell us who the best player to ever hold a racquet was. I lean towards the stupid acronym that means nothing, but to each his own.

 

[Ivanišević]

I don't believe a GOAT may be considered by the titles and ammount of GS titles, because they all lived in different eras.

Rod Laver won the GS twice, but there's no way he could beat Pete Sampras, even playing with wooden racquets, so IMO, Rod Laver CAN'T be the GOAT (which stands for Greatest Player of all Time, not More Acomplished Player of all time).

Borg with modern racquets could probably rivalize Nadal's today, because their styles matched up pretty well, they're both very similar, but Borg was faster, and had better endurance.

IMO, the greatest player of all time, skill wise, tennis wise, and technique wise, is between Borg, Sampras and Federer.

And no, I'm not a Federer Fan
And no, I'm not a Sampras fan.

So, what you are saying? That there's no GOAT in tennis?

 

[mdhubert]

Bottom line it's very subjective: who is the GOAT in classical music ? Mozart, Beethoven ? Some could argue it's Bach or even a less-known composer.

For me it's the same in tennis, everybody has his/her own pantheon and some players are in many personnal pantheons but it is impossible and useless to know which player is in the most number of pantheons. My pantheon comprises Noah, Becker, Rafter, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, but the reasons why I chose these guys are quite diverse and reflect my complex personnality: I like the athleticism and personnality of Rafter and Noah, the class and artistry of Fed and Edberg, the charisma of Agassi and Becker, the power and mental strength of Sampras. Some have more slams, some have less, but it doesn't care, they make me dream, they inspire me, but they are all different.

There's an elite group of guys who have achieved great things like Borg, Laver of Sampras, but one can always say that these guys lacked this or that components. It's impossible to have all qualities in one player. Fed has many qualities but he's quite introvert and his personnality doesn't make everyone dream, or some would argue his volley game is not as good as Edbeg's, etc.. There will always be an "IF", and the race will never end. That's why these boards will have a long, long life !

 

[Rudy]

Andre Agassi is the GOAT

Because of tennis accomplishments, humanitarian efforts, mainstream recognition, all of the above makes him in my boat, the greatest

 

[BluBarry]

Bottom line it's very subjective: who is the GOAT in classical music ? Mozart, Beethoven ? Some could argue it's Bach or even a less-known composer.

For me it's the same in tennis, everybody has his/her own pantheon and some players are in many personnal pantheons but it is impossible and useless to know which player is in the most number of pantheons. My pantheon comprises Noah, Becker, Rafter, Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, but the reasons why I chose these guys are quite diverse and reflect my complex personnality: I like the athleticism and personnality of Rafter and Noah, the class and artistry of Fed and Edberg, the charisma of Agassi and Becker, the power and mental strength of Sampras. Some have more slams, some have less, but it doesn't care, they make me dream, they inspire me, but they are all different.

There's an elite group of guys who have achieved great things like Borg, Laver of Sampras, but one can always say that these guys lacked this or that components. It's impossible to have all qualities in one player. Fed has many qualities but he's quite introvert and his personnality doesn't make everyone dream, or some would argue his volley game is not as good as Edbeg's, etc.. There will always be an "IF", and the race will never end. That's why these boards will have a long, long life !

Very Good & Eloquent Post And btw, Mozart was the goat.

 

[mdhubert]

Very Good & Eloquent Post And btw, Mozart was the goat.

Yeah but his serve was crap !

 

[Rabbit]

To be quite honest, I also think a Player's accomplishments have to be the foundation of any conversation regarding the best or greatest. But if everybody thinks that way, why in the World have we not been able to agree who fits that discription ?

Because opinions are like assh.... ehh noses, everyone's got one. IMO, Laver has to be noted as GOAT because of his two slams, both of which are legitimate in my view; but that is another discussion. Behind him, you have Sampras and Borg who for different reasons are historic. Behind those three is the rest of the field.

People are already saying Roger is the Greatest.

Stick around. When I started playing/following tennis in 1973, Laver was still basically Da Man. In 1974, Connors came along and revolutionized the game with what was then termed a power tennis game. Truth be told, in 1974, Connors hit the ball every bit as hard as anyone ever has. But I digress. The question was asked "Is Connors GOAT?" Why? He's so dominant. Fast forward to 1980, Bjorn Borg is winning the French every time he enters and Wimbledon, 5 in a row. The same question was asked of Borg. He dominated Connors, he dominated everyone. He was single minded, his game ruthless. He couldn't lose. Fast forward to 1984, the same question was asked about McEnroe..."Is he GOAT?" He lost 3 matches, he sent Borg into retirement. He was (and in my view still is) the ultimate S/V player. There was a dead spot for a while. No one really asked the GOAT question of Becker or Edberg or Lendl for that matter. Then comes Sampras.

Any way, what I was trying to demonstrate is that whoever is on top of the rankings usually is touted as GOAT. Rod Laver said that Federer was GOAT, he said same about Sampras back in the 90s, he said he was honored to be mentioned in the same breath as McEnroe in the 80s. He defers attention away from himself, that's how he was brought up. It's just good press to say that the guy who's on top is the GOAT.

Based upon what ? Well now he has a destinctive accomlishment in winning 3 & 3 but still he is far behind Sampras in total amounts.

It depends on what your measure is. Does a run like Borg's (and Federer's 3 & 3) constitute GOAT? Or does longevity like Rosewall, Laver, Connors, and Agassi do it? Therein lies the disagreement amongst the fans.

And hasn't even accomplished what Agassi has in variety.

But Agassi didn't have the consistent performance over a long period of time (some would counter).

So why is he in the running ?

Because fans see him play day in and day out. Sampras? Agassi? McEnroe? Laver? Connors? Out of sight, out of mind.

Of what we think he's gonna do? Heck, that doesn't count or at least it shouldn't count. But I would love to see a majority of people say, "Ok there we have it, we agree that ___is the GOAT thus far".

That ain't gonna happen.

For me it's between Sampras - Laver - Borg and no way am I going to bring up Steffi vs Martina vs Monica vs M.Court.

Based on your original question, I thought you were really asking "What about Gonzalez? What about Hoad?" These were surely candidates without credentials because they were excluded. It seems there is a groundswell opinion among some tennis fans, and I find myself agreeing, that Pancho Gonzalez was the GOAT. He won against Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, and other top pros well into his 40s. He was professional champ for umpteen years.

On the other hand, I had the distinct pleasure to have dinner with two retired professionals from Australia, both Grand Slam winners and 'in the know'. I asked them that question. Both, without hesitation, looked at each other and said "Hoad". I think they revered Hoad because he could do it all.

And you just did bring up the Steffi/Martina/Monica/Court debate....gee thanks.

 

[BluBarry]

Well if anything, I suppose my question has been answered. Here in lays the reason this question was never successfully answered in any Forum I've ever participated in. Far too many variables to compare.

I loved Steffi Graf probably above all others and Monica a very close second for different reasons. My love for Steffi always had an asterick due to her reluctance to incorporate more than a sliced backhand. I thought on many occassions how much better she could really have been with adding a few more elements to her game but she seemed to me, content in knowing she could win with what she had, it was good enough. I would argue to her if I had the opportunity, that Players like Monica, Martina N., Sabatini, Sanchez-V and most recently Davenport all of whom she had her biggest challenges against, would have had a much more difficult time against her if Steffi had a powerful top spin BH she could pull out at any moment. Especially since all except Martina were baseline Players and all but Aranxta were not known for their speed on the court. She could have utilized the 1-2 punch serving out wide and going over the top DTL against them. However her, very potent, sliced BH did float just enough for these women to get a racquet on the ball.

So point being, with a Justine like BH DTL, these slower opponents would not have been able to stay in a rally against her as easily. And just think if she dared play a little more doubles and became very comfortable at net? I'd bet Steffi Graf would have surpassed Court's record which then leaves the open box question on the Women's side of who was better.

I would never argue that Steffi Graf's game was the best of all times. Considering style of play, I'd have to give the nod to Martina N. who imo only lacked the power that Steffi brought to the game.

mdhubert's point was well taken because for me until Roger proves otherwise, Pete Sampras is my pick for Greatest. However nowhere near as many people were inspired by his game as they were Agassi's. People went out on the courts and tried to play like Andre. Maybe not because they saw Andre as a better Player but certainly a better style.

 

[Tennis_Goodness]

I think you need to include accomplishments as part of the criteria, but it's not everything. Comparing the competition and technology of one era to another is virtually impossible.

But you can't just judge on raw talent, or style of play. Part of being the greatest is being able to put it all together (and hold it all together) when it counts. You can be the most talented player in the world, but without the discipline and mental strength you need, you'll never be a champion.

I agree you cannot go on talent alone, but a player like Federer is special.

He doesn't have to win as many slams as some of the other guys to prove he could beat them.

If he left the game right now with 9 slams, I would still pick him at his peak over Sampras.

Someone like Safin howerver, who is also very talented is a different story. If he left the game right now I still would not think his peak would match Pete's peak!

With Federer you can go on his talent because we know he has the complete package and it's not an opinion, he has it all!

 

[callitout]

Truth be told, in 1974, Connors hit the ball every bit as hard as anyone ever has.

Good one...And Jimmy Arias' "big" forehand was bigger than Gonzo's.
Whether or not the players today are better than in previous eras is debatable, but nobody serious who has watched the game, doubts that the serves and groundies are hit harder (for all the reasons mentioned millions of times, by people like Bollettieri, racquet and string technology, topspin, increased physical training).

To OP, there's really nothing to say...If you take accomplishments out of it, then there's really no meaningful discussion of GOAT. Perhaps Deuce is the greatest poet of all times--even without ever having published a poem. Because he shows so much potential on this board.

 

[BluBarry]

Because opinions are like assh.... ehh noses, everyone's got one. IMO, Laver has to be noted as GOAT because of his two slams, both of which are legitimate in my view; but that is another discussion. Behind him, you have Sampras and Borg who for different reasons are historic. Behind those three is the rest of the field.



Stick around. When I started playing/following tennis in 1973, Laver was still basically Da Man. In 1974, Connors came along and revolutionized the game with what was then termed a power tennis game. Truth be told, in 1974, Connors hit the ball every bit as hard as anyone ever has. But I digress. The question was asked "Is Connors GOAT?" Why? He's so dominant. Fast forward to 1980, Bjorn Borg is winning the French every time he enters and Wimbledon, 5 in a row. The same question was asked of Borg. He dominated Connors, he dominated everyone. He was single minded, his game ruthless. He couldn't lose. Fast forward to 1984, the same question was asked about McEnroe..."Is he GOAT?" He lost 3 matches, he sent Borg into retirement. He was (and in my view still is) the ultimate S/V player. There was a dead spot for a while. No one really asked the GOAT question of Becker or Edberg or Lendl for that matter. Then comes Sampras.

Any way, what I was trying to demonstrate is that whoever is on top of the rankings usually is touted as GOAT. Rod Laver said that Federer was GOAT, he said same about Sampras back in the 90s, he said he was honored to be mentioned in the same breath as McEnroe in the 80s. He defers attention away from himself, that's how he was brought up. It's just good press to say that the guy who's on top is the GOAT.



It depends on what your measure is. Does a run like Borg's (and Federer's 3 & 3) constitute GOAT? Or does longevity like Rosewall, Laver, Connors, and Agassi do it? Therein lies the disagreement amongst the fans.



But Agassi didn't have the consistent performance over a long period of time (some would counter).



Because fans see him play day in and day out. Sampras? Agassi? McEnroe? Laver? Connors? Out of sight, out of mind.



That ain't gonna happen.



Based on your original question, I thought you were really asking "What about Gonzalez? What about Hoad?" These were surely candidates without credentials because they were excluded. It seems there is a groundswell opinion among some tennis fans, and I find myself agreeing, that Pancho Gonzalez was the GOAT. He won against Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Ashe, and other top pros well into his 40s. He was professional champ for umpteen years.

On the other hand, I had the distinct pleasure to have dinner with two retired professionals from Australia, both Grand Slam winners and 'in the know'. I asked them that question. Both, without hesitation, looked at each other and said "Hoad". I think they revered Hoad because he could do it all.

And you just did bring up the Steffi/Martina/Monica/Court debate....gee thanks.

Yeah I see your point, can you imagine if we didn't have this Pre-Open Era and Post Open Era divide ? Then we would certainly have to include everyone who ever played the game as you say. Then people would rightfully argue that most Majors were played on the same surface as if that makes a difference. Sampras never won on Clay but is considered by many the best.
So I wonder if surfaces really matters? But of course it should because like was also stated, Agassi wasn't consistant with his results. Had he won say 2 French Opens and 2 Wimbledons then we could seriously talk about him in that light.

Although Laver couldn't beat Sampras at their respective Prime, that is baseing it on what? The power of Sampras, the variety of Sampras ? The athleticism of Sampras? As if Laver possessed none of these ? I wouldn't be so sure to say Pete would blow him away. Remember most of us have only seen an old Rod Laver and it's hard to imagine what his prime was really. As for Haode, yes I've heard comments like that before as well as about Pancho and on the Women's side, Susan Longley.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

I don't believe a GOAT may be considered by the titles and ammount of GS titles, because they all lived in different eras.

Rod Laver won the GS twice, but there's no way he could beat Pete Sampras, even playing with wooden racquets, so IMO, Rod Laver CAN'T be the GOAT (which stands for Greatest Player of all Time, not More Acomplished Player of all time).

Borg with modern racquets could probably rivalize Nadal's today, because their styles matched up pretty well, they're both very similar, but Borg was faster, and had better endurance.

IMO, the greatest player of all time, skill wise, tennis wise, and technique wise, is between Borg, Sampras and Federer.

And no, I'm not a Federer Fan
And no, I'm not a Sampras fan.

i like this point of view.

but i also like pete and roger...

 

[JohnS]

Andre Agassi is the GOAT

Because of tennis accomplishments, humanitarian efforts, mainstream recognition, all of the above makes him in my boat, the greatest

Agreed, in terms of career. He revolutionized hitting the ball on the rise, returning serves early, swinging at the ball out of mid air, and used both speed and power.

He also styled tennis with his flashy clothes and then brought back the conservative, but stylish tennis wear. He showed a lot of humor on the court while foughting competitively. We all knew how serious he was. Othewise, he would have been another headcase.

At the early stages of his career, he was the 'punk', then became the 'pop' star of tennis, then the unexpected winner of wimby. A few years later, he would only win a few more titles.

His game took a dive and his ratings plunged drastically during the mid to late 90's until the big break through of the french. He even had to play challenger events just to "qualify" for major events. Then he found his game and won other numerous titles and slams.

He fought GOATS, GOATS, more GOATS through 3 decades, and has picked up wins (more than one) against the majority of them. He has married a GOAT himself. He probably has the power to create 'GOAT's himself .

And this is just on the court....

If we include how he helped changes many other peoples lives through his foundations and donations, then the only one left to rival this is maybe Federer, Kuerten, and Rafter since they are known for being caring, friendly, and selfless...

p.s. my fingers are getting tired. I can type more, but i have other stuff to do than to write an autobiography of AA, which im sure most of you thread writers have already created.

But yeah, in terms of overall accomplishments, AA wins by a light year.

 

[Rabbit]

Although Laver couldn't beat Sampras at their respective Prime, that is baseing it on what?

Says who?

 

[Warriorroger]

Well if anything, I suppose my question has been answered. Here in lays the reason this question was never successfully answered in any Forum I've ever participated in. Far too many variables to compare.

I loved Steffi Graf probably above all others and Monica a very close second for different reasons. My love for Steffi always had an asterick due to her reluctance to incorporate more than a sliced backhand. I thought on many occassions how much better she could really have been with adding a few more elements to her game but she seemed to me, content in knowing she could win with what she had, it was good enough. I would argue to her if I had the opportunity, that Players like Monica, Martina N., Sabatini, Sanchez-V and most recently Davenport all of whom she had her biggest challenges against, would have had a much more difficult time against her if Steffi had a powerful top spin BH she could pull out at any moment. Especially since all except Martina were baseline Players and all but Aranxta were not known for their speed on the court. She could have utilized the 1-2 punch serving out wide and going over the top DTL against them. However her, very potent, sliced BH did float just enough for these women to get a racquet on the ball.

So point being, with a Justine like BH DTL, these slower opponents would not have been able to stay in a rally against her as easily. And just think if she dared play a little more doubles and became very comfortable at net? I'd bet Steffi Graf would have surpassed Court's record which then leaves the open box question on the Women's side of who was better.

I would never argue that Steffi Graf's game was the best of all times. Considering style of play, I'd have to give the nod to Martina N. who imo only lacked the power that Steffi brought to the game.

mdhubert's point was well taken because for me until Roger proves otherwise, Pete Sampras is my pick for Greatest. However nowhere near as many people were inspired by his game as they were Agassi's. People went out on the courts and tried to play like Andre. Maybe not because they saw Andre as a better Player but certainly a better style.

You like Graf, so do I, but perhaps you haven't seen her play in the mid 80s. Her game was more versatile than in the 90s. You are mistaken about the slice backhand. That shot gave the players you mentioned, a lot of trouble. The slice was so good, players had to hit up the ball, and then came the kill with the forehand. The players you mentioned all have a losing record against the slice backhand. Yet every player except for Navratilova has a losing record against that game. She was a more complete player in the 80s, but a better player in the 90s. The 1999 quarter final against Venus was IMO the way she would have palyed had she been born in this generation. The final was a puzzle to me. That was the first time I saw her play in 17 years where she looked like she didn't care.

 

[BluBarry]

Agreed, in terms of career. He revolutionized hitting the ball on the rise, returning serves early, swinging at the ball out of mid air, and used both speed and power.

He also styled tennis with his flashy clothes and then brought back the conservative, but stylish tennis wear. He showed a lot of humor on the court while foughting competitively. We all knew how serious he was. Othewise, he would have been another headcase.

At the early stages of his career, he was the 'punk', then became the 'pop' star of tennis, then the unexpected winner of wimby. A few years later, he would only win a few more titles.

His game took a dive and his ratings plunged drastically during the mid to late 90's until the big break through of the french. He even had to play challenger events just to "qualify" for major events. Then he found his game and won other numerous titles and slams.

He fought GOATS, GOATS, more GOATS through 3 decades, and has picked up wins (more than one) against the majority of them. He has married a GOAT himself. He probably has the power to create 'GOAT's himself .

And this is just on the court....

If we include how he helped changes many other peoples lives through his foundations and donations, then the only one left to rival this is maybe Federer, Kuerten, and Rafter since they are known for being caring, friendly, and selfless...

p.s. my fingers are getting tired. I can type more, but i have other stuff to do than to write an autobiography of AA, which im sure most of you thread writers have already created.

But yeah, in terms of overall accomplishments, AA wins by a light year.

I enjoy your way of thinking and would love to include AA in the GOAT conversations but bringing him up always seems to create havoc. Instant shutdown from many Posters who GO BY ACCOMPLISHMENTS ALONE. I'm with you if I understand you correctly. Which speak to my original Post, let's call it the intangibles. Nobody brought as much to the game as Ande Agassi. I'll never forget the match he had against Jackass Connors when someone in the crowd yelled out, "Hey Jimbo, he's a Punk and you're a Legend". Well of course Connors loved that because of the Jerk he is and offered nothing in defense of his fellow Player, which was yet another example of Connors' no Class attitude. Well I wonder what that guy is yelling out about Agassi today ? Oh yeah,Agassi who single handidly revolutionized the face of Tennis. I can't say he changed the game but he certainly brought it more front & center. And as the years passed he got wiser and wiser. Just think of his marrage to Steffi Graf. I love the woman but many would say she's not the most beautiful lady around. But to Andre, that didn't matter, who could've had any woman he pointed his finger at. He found a Soulmate in Steffi and didn't turn away from that. Another example of his overall Class.

So here we have a guy who maybe could have had a few more Slam Titles under his belt during his drop-down period in 1997 but recognized that something was not going right with his motivation (shortly after breaking up with Brooke) and needed time to recharge. Much like Jennifer Capriati did. And when they both came back, they came back with force only Andre sustained his. His Humanitarian efforts from a Professional Tennis Player wasn't originated by Agassi. I think I'd have to give Arthur Ashe or Billy Jen King that honor but Andre didn't jump into this because of publicity. He made it happen because of a recognized need and although Tennis might be the main physical activity at his Foundation, Agassi and Rogers decided that a complete well-rounded education was first & foremost.

So to ask the question, Greatest of All Times, needs to be clarified because as you say, when you look at Andre Agassi and what he accomplished on and off the Court, he certainly can be considered for using the assets he aquired from Tennis and his notability to make lives better. Because the statement itself eludes to the thought, Greatest Tennis Player but also could be interpreted as Greatest Personality.

 

[Babblelot]

To be quite honest, I also think a Player's accomplishments have to be the foundation of any conversation regarding the best or greatest. But if everybody thinks that way, why in the World have we not been able to agree who fits that discription ?

People are already saying Roger is the Greatest. Based upon what ? Well now he has a destinctive accomlishment in winning 3 & 3 but still he is far behind Sampras in total amounts. And hasn't even accomplished what Agassi has in variety. So why is he in the running ? Of what we think he's gonna do? Heck, that doesn't count or at least it shouldn't count. But I would love to see a majority of people say, "Ok there we have it, we agree that ___is the GOAT thus far".

For me it's between Sampras - Laver - Borg and no way am I going to bring up Steffi vs Martina vs Monica vs M.Court.

Why don't you simply remove the "GOAT" from your thread and make your point. It seems your point has very little to do with the "GOAT" discussion.

 

[BluBarry]

Why don't you simply remove the "GOAT" from your thread and make your point. It seems your point has very little to do with the "GOAT" discussion.

Yeah I get it but too late already jumped in too far. Besides I thought this was dead already.