The BEST because you win the MOST GS Titles = noway!

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by borisboris, Sep 14, 2004.

  1. borisboris

    borisboris Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    486
    :roll: America is obsessed w/ the largest - biggest - best - grandest etc. Is Sampras the best because of 14 GS titles. Bjorn retired by age 25. Little MO's career ended by the old age of 19. The # of titles represents victory but greatness is measured in many factors. By sheer #'s - Federer would have to win 8 straight GS titles to pass Bjorn by his 25th birthday. Why can't we enjoy FEDEX's superb play each stroke he takes - rather than say "congrats for winning another GS- are you going after 15?"
     
    #1
  2. Peter Samprer

    Peter Samprer Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    213
    Federer only has Roddick behind him. Sampras had Agassi, Courier, Chang, don't know who else :) help me here...lol! Fed and Rod are lucky enough that no one wants to step up. Pete had somebody who always step up to try to match his game.
     
    #2
  3. borisboris

    borisboris Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    486
    Tho it was only Wimbledon in the GS -- Becker always picked up Pete's play to attain his peak = 4 World Championship matches. Pete also had trouble w/ Enquivst. Good point tho. You always need someone to help w/ the hunger and an ultra stellar performance.
     
    #3
  4. Kevin Patrick

    Kevin Patrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,025
    borisboris,
    I'm not sure Sampras is universally considered the GOAT because of his 14, but it sure is a factor. Laver still outranks him with many. Court has 24 slams(the most by a woman) & no one seems to rank her above Graf, Navratilova, or Evert. But don't you think longevity & continued excellence should be a factor? In all other American team sports, longevity is the most important factor. Look at the baseball hall of fame. What if a player had 2 years of 70+ home runs & dropped off considerably for the rest of his career? No way would he make the hall of fame. Pedro Martinez is perhaps the best pitcher of his generation, if he stoped playing today, he wouldn't get in (IMO)
    Michael Jordan was clearly the best player in the game in 1991 & some considered him the most talented player ever. What if he only won 1 or 2 championships instead of 6? How would he be remembered?
    Are Shaq, Kobe, Tim Duncan the greatest of all time because they are among the best today?
    I do understand your point though(but don't think it's limited to Americans in this case) Fed is dealing with all this attention & questions about 14 because he is doing this so soon after Sampras retired, its hard not to think about it.
    When Pete won 4 out of 5 slams during a stretch between '93 & '94, believe me, many were already throwing out high total numbers that he would end with. And Pete had to deal with a lot of "will you be the best ever" like questions. Though his dominance being bad for the game(partly do to the power game) & "boring" personality were questions he most had to deal with.
     
    #4
  5. borisboris

    borisboris Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    486
    Well KP - I guess I'm directing my question to the Press - who are pretty lame in asking quality questions - rather they go for the grandiose Q & A session.
    One of my points is that - don't pull another Sampras = Are you going after 15 when Fedex wins his 8th. No one will have that drive for 6 straight yrs @ #1
    My other point = is longevity =the best or is it just a quick flame.
    Look at Gale Sayers - then Barry Sanders
    One retired young w/ an injury
    the other says - Hey I don't need this and the press-media - fans errupt.
    Is Fedex going to be ZEUS or his side kick bro Posiden?
     
    #5
  6. tytan

    tytan New User

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Messages:
    62
    well, that's the US of A for you. everything is numbers, stats, match-ups...
    no american player in the finals, and you get the lowest ever finals rating.
     
    #6
  7. alfa164164

    alfa164164 Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,164
    Location:
    ATL
    Boris - Good point, there aren't too many people who consider Roy Emerson the 2nd "GOAT"
     
    #7
  8. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,968
    Location:
    Antarctica
    "America is obsessed with the largest, the biggest, the grandest...the best, etc." --- borisboris

    Hey! If you're talkin' women, what's da problem??!

    borisboris, imho you're right. Who cares about numbers? When pokin' the fireplace, who cares about the mantlepiece? That is, to enjoy Federer for simply being Federer on a tennis court is indeed worth the price of admission alone. It's unfortunate that the lazy members of the press parrot the same old "when are you retiring?" questions ad-nauseum on aging stars.
     
    #8
  9. lelopez

    lelopez Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    155
    Hmmm......nO! Borg retired at the age of 27 actually
     
    #9
  10. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    obviously the difference is between those who view the best of all time as the most talented of all time and those who view the best of all time as the most wins of all time. greatness is greatness IMO and as long as not a freakish anomoly than clearly Fed is the best of all time,,,,he's won enough to prove it wasnt any sort of accident. i dont think it's even debatable from a skillset level..Laver? forget it..not even close. laver was capabale of stinking up the place at times <not that he wasnt great>. I think many of you werent around to actually watch him work his magic but also play like he never played before. also, new generation players in general are faster and bigger and stronger than the older because humans are evolving (physically anyway). in any case, its pretty subjective to judge greatness by any other means than results over a period of time, and i guess that is why they put the importance on that. look at other sports..nobody speaks of connie hawkins or gus johnson and those dudes were truly amazing abilitywise..or a gayle sayers in football who had a short career. IMO fed is GOAT, followed fairly closely by Samps.
     
    #10
  11. devila

    devila Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,749
    U.S. kids believe the media hype and there are no proper places to hone their skills. Great coaches are rare and tennis parents are complacent.
    This is the USA, where Mary Carillo, McEnroe, Courier, Mal, etc. worship the ground that Brad Gilbert walks on.
     
    #11
  12. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    most tennis parents are far from complacent..they tend to err the other way. the parents of ranked juniors anyway.
     
    #12
  13. devila

    devila Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,749
    How many top 50 juniors are now top 20 pro players?
     
    #13
  14. perfmode

    perfmode Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,767
    I have come to the conclusion that American's do not have natural talent and have to send their kids to Bollettieri to even have a shot at playing on the ATP tour.
    Players like Federer, Adu and Ronaldinho all came from nothing and had to work their way up. Kids in the US are born with a silver spoon and don't succeed even after having things placed in their laps.
     
    #14
  15. NoBadMojo

    NoBadMojo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    11,915
    Location:
    Parts unknown
    there are far better camps than the bollettieri one for the best juniors..they just get the pub and they will pretty much accept anyone w. sufficient funds, altho the elite get special treatment...its just pretty much a forehand boot camp..but for a kid w. good discipline already, i think carlos goffi's tournament tough school is the way to go if you are a junior who is good enough. i think the fault lies within the USTA who should have much better grassroots and junior develpment programs..not all the kids are lacking in talent and discipline. they're not all soft and weak and spoiled, but most of them are over here that i have worked with ,,and for that you gotta blame some pretty bad parenting IMO. many of these kids need their asses kicked and dragged around the block a few times IMO. ed
     
    #15
  16. bigserving

    bigserving Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    583
    Since tennis is a game about competition, what other criteria besides results is pertinent to measure the all-time best in the game? Results in the game's biggest events MUST be the largest part of the criteria for determining the GOAT.

    I would also use world ranking over the course of a player's career as an important criteria.

    Other than that, what else is there to measure? Just because has a pretty stroke or a big serve, so what? There is no judging or style points in tennis, it is about winning........baby.
     
    #16
  17. devila

    devila Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,749
    The funny thing is fans with double standards will tell the less biased fans:
    "Don't say a thing" if there's this conversation:

    1 guy won a slam against really tough competition. He's the youngest, but he's the least respected among former #1 players.

    The next year, another guy won slams after playing 2 injured guys and a tired player who had to play 3 prior, tough marathons. He also got a walkover and rain delays helped him regroup & escape an inevitable defeat.
     
    #17
  18. rhubarb

    rhubarb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    Yep, I agree Nalbandian and Ferrero was pretty tough competition. No less than Agassi, Hewitt and Henman though.

    What a selective memory those fans must have!

    Wasn't Roddick assisted by the rain delays in last year's USO? Wasn't he lucky to escape from match point with Nalbandian, especially when the latter was injured?

    Yes, Federer got a walkover against Pavel in this year's tourney, Andrei admitted he wouldn't have won anyway (he's 0-4 against Federer this year alone). So how much difference did that make?

    With regard to the quarter-final against Agassi, the momentum was certainly with Federer when the rain stopped for the night, and if you remember he was 2 sets to 1 up. Hardly an inevitable defeat coming.

    As for the AO, Safin was tired but he's a young man and had two days off before the final. It's hardly Federer's fault if Marat can't beat Roddick and Agassi in less than 5 sets. In any case Federer normally beats him easily, so what's new? Ferrero was slightly injured but he still played. Who else was injured against Federer - I don't recall anybody?
     
    #18
  19. fantom

    fantom Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,542
    From PerfMode:
    "I have come to the conclusion that American's do not have natural talent and have to send their kids to Bollettieri to even have a shot at playing on the ATP tour.
    Players like Federer, Adu and Ronaldinho all came from nothing and had to work their way up. Kids in the US are born with a silver spoon and don't succeed even after having things placed in their laps."

    Are you kidding me that Americans don't have natural athletic ability? We have the best athletes in the world. They just aren't interested in playing tennis. There are MANY of the top athletes in other sports that grew up poor and found their escape from the projects through some sport. The sport is basketball, football (American), or baseball, however. Tennis is just not a popular sport like it is in Europe. Niether is soccer (thank goodness!!!)
     
    #19
  20. devila

    devila Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,749
    The unbiased fans have no selective memory about
    rain delays and lack of practice on center court at Wimbledon 2004.
    It's the U.S.'s fault that Nalbandian and Ferrero couldn't quickly beat El Aynaoui and Todd Martin (who weren't playing like top 15 players).
    It's easily forgettable that Nalbandian played very well and took Roddick to 5 sets the day before the final! Maybe he miraculously beat Federer!
    Ferrero suffered terribly in the final! :wink:

    Unbiased fans know nothing about Nalbandian's weak wrist at Australian Open. Maybe the same injury disappeared by then!
    I forgot about David's performances at Masters Cup. :oops:
    In USO, Agassi had hip trouble. Hewitt had leg pain.
    Ferrero didn't have a groin injury like he had at Australian Open.
    I guess at Australia, he wasn't as weak as he was at USO final!
     
    #20
  21. Brian Purdie

    Brian Purdie Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    650
    six years at number one. thats the number that counts. go pete!
     
    #21
  22. boris becker 1

    boris becker 1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    how many slams would laver have won if he was allowed to play the slams. To me he is the best ever and borg winning 5 straight wombledons and 4 straight roland garros is remarkable
     
    #22
  23. galahad

    galahad New User

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    95
    laver rules

    Of course Laver would have had about 25 majors if he was allowed to play as a professional. Funny the guy just wanted to earn a living and for that wasn't allowed to play the slams....
    Why satchel paige and others should be considered greatest in baseball
     
    #23
  24. rhubarb

    rhubarb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    An incredible achievement of course, but he wasn't at the top all the time during those six years. The year-end number one stat didn't use to have the prestige that seems to have gained just in the last few years.

    Weeks at number one count for more imo (and naturally Sampras ranks high on that anyway).
     
    #24
  25. galahad

    galahad New User

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    95
    Weeks at #1

    If we consider weeks at #1, If we assume that a grand slam indicates dominance, then if laver wins a grand slam, he would most likely have been #1 during that year. Hence, from 62, through to 69(when he won his 2nd grand slam) one could argue he was #1. Thats 7 years of consecutive #1.....about 350 weeks..
    not bad for a 5 foot 8 inch lefty.
     
    #25
  26. Tennis Guy

    Tennis Guy Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Messages:
    414
    I pretty sure the batter would get in because of setting the record and Pedro would defiantly get in because of his strikeouts.
     
    #26
  27. VamosRafa

    VamosRafa Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,202
    I was going to respond to the initial question, but then I read this:

    And I figured, why bother responding in an intelligent, informed fashion, when I'll have this "perf" junk spewed back at me.

    Apparently folks here aren't interested in facts re American ATP/WTA results over the past few years; they are only interested in their own "opinions."

    And that's fine, but just realize that no one is going to take you seriously, unless you back up your statements with facts. And you have not done so. And cannot do so. :p
     
    #27
  28. Steve Huff

    Steve Huff Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    7,257
    When Fed wins the French, I'll consider him up there with Laver. When he wins any tournament 5 times in a row, or any tournament 6 times, I'll consider him up there with Borg. If longevity is a factor, I'll need to see him in the quarters on up when he's past 35 to mention him with Connors or Rosewall. And if you're going to measure him on results, he's still quite a few behind Sampras. Give him time. He may end up being an undisputed "best ever", but not now.
     
    #28

Share This Page