Tennis Channel last year

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by jokinla, Nov 30, 2012.

  1. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    They had Fed the GOAT on their top 100 of all time, before he won another Wimbledon, and claimed the most weeks at #1.
     
    #1
  2. zam88

    zam88 Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,341
    do you want them to move him up higher?
     
    #2
  3. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    That's because he was the GOAT. Now he's even GOATer.
     
    #3
  4. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    As Roger continue to win, the more people pick him as #1. And few fans who are too hard on him will eventually have to give in since he continue to widen the gap.
     
    #4
  5. underground

    underground Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2012
    Messages:
    6,989
    Nah he's now GOATerer.
     
    #5
  6. jokinla

    jokinla Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,705
    Just proves the point that this forum is the only place that it's debated, with them putting him there before he won another Wimbledon and bagged another several months at #1.
     
    #6
  7. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2012
    #7
  8. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    Here is how the players are being evaluated...



    PLAYER CRITERIA

    * Number of Major Titles won
    * Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
    * Player Ranking
    * Performance at ATP/WTA events
    * Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
    * Records held or broken
    * Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4
     
    #8
  9. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I agree that the Tennis Channel's list was flawed and that, obviously, Gonzales should rank well ahead of Emerson.

    However as for putting Federer as GOAT, that isn't really controversial. The only other man who has a realistic claim is Laver.
     
    #9
  10. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    They have Graf and Martina at the very top on the women side, and that isn't controversial either.

    People don't realize that determining the top 10 is hard enough already, let alone 100, where it gets more subjective as you go down the list. Anyone can have make their own list and they all would be difference.

    The Tennis Channel's top 100 wasn't determined by one expert, but a combined of many experts opinion, and they all have their own top list.
     
    #10
  11. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    But that's not true. Other players have realistic claims as well.
     
    #11
  12. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Number of major titles won: Professionals were banned until the open era
    Overall peformance at Grand Slam events: Professionals were banned until the open era
    Player Ranking: No official rankings until 1973
    Performance at ATP events: The ATP wasn't formed until 1972
    Performance at Davis Cup events: The Davis Cup was amateur only until the open era, and amateur/freelance pro only until 1973

    Not much of a criteria, is it? :-?
     
    #12
  13. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Well yes there are all the obvious historical contenders (Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras et al) and I'm sure some people have ranked each of these guys No 1.

    But in a "consensus poll" like the Tennis Channel was, with various experts voting, the names which will most often pop up time and again at, or near, the top of everyone's lists are Federer and Laver.
     
    #13
  14. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Yes, we have seen your list. At some point, a choice has to be made, otherwise there is no such thing as a ranking.
     
    #14
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    Pro were banned from slam event but makeup for other events they played. TTC took Laver's 200 single titles into consideration, in case you didn't notice.

    They are also aware of Laver's dominant years and knew he was the best player in those years, despite it wasn't from a future ATP system.

    They also included Laver 69 GS and 62 GS(although lesser weight).

    If you believe none of the above weren't taking into consideration, no way Laver makes the top 20, let alone #2 greatest of all time.
     
    #15
  16. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Laver was number 2 on the list because of his 2 Grand Slams, which serendipitiously, happens to mean a lot with today's criteria, as does Laver's 11 mainstream majors. Gonzales only has 2 mainstream majors (too low by today's criteria), having turned pro at the age of 21 and the open era not arriving until he was just about 40. Gonzales dominating the old pro tours and winning those big pro tournaments, as he did in his prime, does not fit in with today's criteria. Emerson winning 12 mainstream majors, however, is much bigger in today's criteria, hence why he was higher ranked.
     
    #16
  17. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Agreed. Many aside from Laver have great claims. Gonzalez, Tilden, Rosewall, Borg among them.
     
    #17
  18. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    And anyone who ranks Emerson ahead of Gonzalez does NOT know tennis history. Ranking players by a fixed number of majors won is too simplistic and superficial.

    Gonzalez in his prime would have destroyed Emerson in his prime as he would have just about anyone on that Tennis Channel List.
     
    #18
  19. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Emerson was seeded higher than Gonzales at the 1968 French Open, which was the first open major. Emerson was defending champion while Gonzales was 40 years old, many years past his prime and playing in his first mainstream major since winning the 1949 US Championships as a 21 year old. Gonzales and Emerson met in the quarter finals of the 1968 French Open, and Gonzales won in 5 sets by 7-5, 6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4.
     
    #19
  20. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    His GS elevated him to #2. Had he never won any GS, he wouldn't be #2. Like I said, these experts are aware of all Laver's achievements, so stop acting as you are the only one who knows about laver in great details. Keep in mind the top 100 included players well before Laver's time(eg William Renshaw, Norman Brookes). They do not ignore history.
     
    #20
  21. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,436
    that he won again proves that his dominance was due to a weak era and all his losses to nadal are valid (and not because he was past prime) and thus he lost the GOAT spot by winning:D. In fact his only wins were because Nadal was pre prime, past prime or injured.

    just kidding, he was the GOAT before the win and he still is till a better one comes around.
     
    #21
  22. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,551
    if they only considered Gonzales' 2 majors he would have have had an even worse place on the list
     
    #22
  23. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,115
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    There's also Pancho Gonzales, at the age of 41, beating Charlie Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon by 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, after saving 7 match points. It's a legendary match that they will know about.

    My point is that Gonzales' professional achievements, i.e. his dominance during his prime years, have been minimised or ignored. I ask anyone to give me a case on Emerson being above Gonzales without going into the "12 majors to 2" excuse.
     
    #23
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Can you tell me why the Channel experts rank Laver second and Gonzalez only 22nd? Why did they consider Laver's achievements but not Rosewall's or Gonzalez'.

    It does not honour you that you agree with the Channel list as its experts made totally wrong decisions. One even could say those voters produced just crap...
     
    #24
  25. sunof tennis

    sunof tennis Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,118
    Completely agree with you on that one. Emmerson probably isn't in the first tier of Aussie greats. Would think Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and Hoad were all better players. I think rational person would have to recognize the obvious weakness of these rankings, but alsl the difficulties of comparing vastly different eras. How does somene compare a Bill Tilden, Don Budge or Rene Lacoste (none of whom most of us ever saw play) with any of the modern players?
    Personally, I think the tennis channel people simply wanted to create some controversy (mostly good natured) and get people discussing the merits of various players.
    Not that you asked but my top 5 (for the men)
    Federer
    Laver
    Sampras
    Borg
    Gonzalez/Nadal
    (yes, I know I cheated) and would think the top two (plus Gonzalez-too far back in time to really properly evaluate) would certainly have claims to being the best.
     
    #25
  26. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    You keep referring to the two/three players everytime, as to try to suggest all the 100 players are misplaced. You think Graf #1 is wrong? Fed #1 is also wrong? Come on man. You try to come up with a top 100, and let the fans to poke holes on your ranking.
     
    #26

Share This Page