Unbelievable Ignorance of Some Posters

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Feb 13, 2010.

  1. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I hardly know what to say.!?

    I guess ignorance is the correct word--not idiocy or stupidity or buffoonery.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
    #1
  2. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Actually, I could say that I believe Budge's backhand was or is better than Fed's.

    But I guess the slacks settle any debate there.
     
    #2
  3. jamauss

    jamauss Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,752
    Location:
    https://goldenslam.com
    That's not even a picture of Rod Laver unless it's reversed or something - ? Laver is a lefty. I don't remember seeing him play in slacks either...just shorts and a polo
     
    #3
  4. raiden031

    raiden031 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,997
    I think thats the point of the thread. Someone who doesn't even know who Rod Laver is trying to make a point about older generations vs. today's generation.
     
    #4
  5. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yep, it's a picture of Don Budge--wooden handle, slacks and all.
     
    #5
  6. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    I was in my car waiting for someone so I decided to get on the internet. Even from my tiny cell phone screen I could see it was Budge. Anyway Budge is righty, Laver's lefty.

    Slacks went out I think in the 1940's, way before Laver's time.

    Great jokes hoodjem.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
    #6
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Funny thing is that while I think Budge is vastly overrated, it would probably have been interesting if they played. Budge could hit his backhand on the rise and he had a great down the line backhand. I'd be curious to see how Budge's down the line backhand to Federer's forehand would do since Federer moves over to his backhand side a lot and leaves that open. Very few can hit to that area today and in the past. Nadal with his lefty forehand, Djokovic but not many.

    What bothers me in all honesty is if you haven't seen a player, then don't comment on that player. If you see someone write Player A is superior to Player B and you haven't seen one of the players play or read about the player and his or her style, then you aren't qualified to comment on the player.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
    #7
  8. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yep, and all the FedisGOAT persons have seen only Fed. So, for them he is the GOAT.

    Apparently they have never even seen still photos of Laver (or Budge), because they don't know what he (they) looks like.
     
    #8
  9. VGP

    VGP Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,311
    Location:
    Location: Location
    Why do you think Budge is (vastly) overrated?

    Based on the films that I've seen, he definitely had game.
     
    #9
  10. VGP

    VGP Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,311
    Location:
    Location: Location
    Oh, back to the topic....

    ....even if you google image 'Rod Laver' you don't get that picture of Don Budge. WTH.
     
    #10
  11. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,370
    Some also state, that the RG was played on grass, and all majors were played in challenge round style. *******s shoud be careful to dismiss all tennis history before 2000, because consequently they diminish their own hero. Federer himself seems more aware of tennis history.
     
    #11
  12. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Definitely had game. He was a great player but I felt some of his real accomplishments were not quite as big as his rep. It would take too long to explain it in this post.
     
    #12
  13. RoddickAce

    RoddickAce Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    2,467
    I agree, and that goes for youtube videos too. Watching youtube clips of a player don't provide sufficient info on how a player plays either. Watching many complete matches would show you things (like the players' true weaknesses, ability to handle pressure, etc.) that youtube highlight reels cannot show.
     
    #13
  14. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Oh god, now that you mention it--this is true.

    I saw someone just last week denigrating Laver because he had to play only one match (against the challenger) to win Wimbledon.

    The depth of historical ignorance is astounding.


    (Yes about Federer himself. I've read that when he gets together with Laver, Fed asks about 1962 and what it took to win all four.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
    #14
  15. jswinf

    jswinf Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,143
    Age maybe has something to do with it. The Budge photo's probably from 1940 or so, say 12 years before I was born, and it looks ancient to me. So--what does a picture of Laver in 1969 look like to someone born in 1985 or whatever. Of course they'd have to pick on Rod for having shorts too short instead of long trousers. And you have to take the accumulated wisdom of a lifetime into account (at least I do.)

    I never used to think much of Budge's greatness, but reading about how he lost some prime playing years to World War II plus injured his right shoulder in military training made me think more of his place in the game. Like baseball fans wondering what Ted Williams' career stats might have been if he hadn't missed seasons for WWII and Korea.

    It does seem consistent, reading about tennis in different eras, that everyone always felt they were seeing the greatest tennis ever played or that ever could be played.
     
    #15
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Age has a lot to do with it. People naturally are inclined to think players today are the best. And many are convinced players of the past are the best. We have to be objective and we cannot assume one truth fits all. A player from the past can be the best or a present player can be.

    I'm not sure if I mentioned it in this thread or another but if you used the sport of baseball as an example, you would think the pitchers of today are the hardest throwers ever. And yet if you look from the 1960's you have a number of pitchers like Nolan Ryan, Sandy Koufax and Tom Seaver who could throw as hard as anyone and could do it for nine innings. Ryan threw over 100 miles per hours in the 1960's. When Ryan retired in his late forties in the early 1990's he still threw in the high 90's. I believe the last pitch he threw was 98 miles an hour. Yet if you used the logic of the posters here, no one from the 1960's could throw as hard as the pitchers today because of the new modern training and techniques. If we didn't know better some posters would argue Nolan Ryan would have throw 75 miles an hour, if that.

    I believe that some players can be GOATS in the present. I'm not always struck on one player as the GOAT forever but the requirements for GOAT is very very high and you really have to fit all the requirements, at least usually. But a GOAT candidate shouldn't appear every other year. Just remember, last year people were calling Nadal the probably GOAT. Now it's back to Federer. Maybe if Nadal recovers it may laughingly go back to him.

    I have seem a number of players in different sports convince me that they are the GOAT. For example I used to think that perhaps Jack Nicklaus was the GOAT in golf but now I think Tiger Woods may very well be. Yet at the same time I think the players of the past in golf can compete today. A perfect example was Tom Watson's amazing run in the British Open last year at age 59. He almost won the tournament. It was a great story. Watson was at his best in the 1970's and I don't doubt if he had his physical skills when he was in his prime he would have won the British Open last year.

    Laver was no doubt a great athlete with tremendously technique. He was super fast with a left arm and wrist that was like King Kong's. His wrist was measured to be as big as the World Heavyweight Champion. Because of that he was able to almost play Ping Pong with a tennis racket. He could flix the ball at fantastic speeds. He had amazingly reflexes and a superb volley, touch and serve. Does this sound like a guy who couldn't compete today?

    Federer is also immensely gifted with wonderful speed and power. He has super groundies and he is very smooth.

    Both are super players and both can compete well in any era.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2010
    #16
  17. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    More like a little bit of everything. Anyway who cares? Let 'em blather in the funny farm that is the General Pro Player forum. Thankfully few of 'em venture over here for their pitiful hero-worship.
     
    #17
  18. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,541
    Location:
    OREGON
    My heavens. You'd think the pro Fed / anti Fed debate were like the abortion debate from so many posters here. It needn't be so black or white or full of venom. Intelligent and educated folks can exist on both sides.
     
    #18
  19. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Good point.
     
    #19
  20. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Good point JS. Wise beyond your years.
     
    #20
  21. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Actually I think all 4 of those would be correct words for people like the one who posted that. :twisted: Though ignorance probably is the best of the 4.
     
    #21
  22. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    Exactly. For those who think that only the young and untutored support Federer's GOAT claims, I would point out that that Jack Kramer (born 1921), Nick Bollettieri (born 1931) and Cliff Drysdale (born 1941) are all on record as stating that Federer is the greatest player they have ever seen. So, of course, are McEnroe, Becker, Agassi, etc.
     
    #22
  23. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,016
    Location:
    Weak era
    Same goes the other way around as well,those who dismiss Fed's numerous accomplishments as simply a product of a weak era and "choking" "clown" opposition diminishes numerous old greats's credibility who almost all seem to be in agreement that Fed is a special player and one of the best ever regardless of a supposed mug era so often mentioned here.

    There doesn't really seem to be that many people in this forum who have a somewhat balanced view on Fed,he's either put on GOAT pedestal and or past greats are inferior to him(he would crush small Laver and similar nonsense) or he's only great due to weak opposition and "luck".
     
    #23
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Kramer has also supported Budge recently also. The person Kramer truly supported as the GOAT was himself. Kramer has said if Open Tennis was around he would have won 25 majors.

    I've seen the article in which Kramer said Federer was a possible GOAT. He joked that he (Kramer) would have problems winning a game against Federer. And I emphasize the word joked. Yet a while later I saw an article in which Kramer stated he thought Budge and Vines would defeat Federer. Now taking into account Kramer thought himself to be superior to Budge and Vines, that would rank Federer fourth. One point I'd like to make with Kramer, I thought his opinions were quite unusual. He ranked Riggs over Pancho Gonzalez for example. He put Laver in the second eschelon of greats below Riggs, Perry, Vines, Gonzalez. He also ranked his great friend Ted Schroeder as just below the top eschelon and about equal to Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, Newcombe and Segura.

    In the game of baseball there was a great player called Honus Wagner. He was a shortstop for the Pittsburgh Pirates. He was virtually forgotten and very few thought he was even close to being a GOAT candidate in Major League Baseball. The great Baseball Historian Bill James analyzed his situation and statistics and found out that this player was perhaps the greatest that ever lived! Perhaps greater than the more well known Babe Ruth who came years later. Because of this new information, the current baseball experts now rank Honus Wagner as one of the all time greats when just a few years ago he wasn't even close.

    My general point is that just because experts rank a player the GOAT or not doesn't mean they are correct because often experts go with the general opinion which may or not be correct. Many of these experts are often dazzled by some match or something about the player. Drysdale has also said Sampras was greater than Laver. Then I believe he changed his mind. Now he said Federer is the GOAT. Just a few years ago, the same experts almost universally believed Sampras to be the best. Just before that, many if not most ranked John McEnroe was the GOAT and probably many of the same experts.

    We have been lucky that in recent years findings by Robert Geist, Andrew Tas and some other tennis historians we are able to look at the new information and evaluate for ourselves. Very few knew the great accomplishments of Ken Rosewall and Pancho Gonzalez over the years. Gonzalez for example was an incredible physical specimen who dominated tennis for many years with possibly the greatest single weapon in tennis history, his awesome serve.

    Federer could very well be the GOAT but as of now I don't think it's a slam dunk that he is and a number of other players like Tilden have valid claims to GOAT. I think only the passing of time can be clearly evaluate all of this. That's all I am writing. I would write this if people were writing that Laver was the GOAT if his career wasn't over yet and Rosewall, Tilden and Gonzalez.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
    #24
  25. joe sch

    joe sch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Hotel CA
    For Andy G, maybe its better to be lucky than ignorant ... even thou he did not post a Laver pic in his Laver v Federer comparison, he did get the other guy who actually did "win" a grand slam. LOL !

    Suggestion: There is alot more than comparing pictures of different era GOATs than determining alltime GOATS. If you must just compare pictures, get the correct player.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
    #25
  26. britbox

    britbox Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    237
    Hoodjem,pc1,urban... enjoy your posts,3 of the best on here but I also sense a bit of inverted snobbery sometimes from tennis historians in general.

    I appreciate It's hard to put things into context when considering the history of the sport but it cuts both ways... Sure, we'll have people who haven't seen much tennis beyond the Federer era, or Sampras etc... and go onto make gospel-like proclamations about levels of greatness but on the other hand we have tennis historians who will expect people to rank players in the same lofty category based on grainy photos of some guy with a beard wearing long flannel trousers smoking a cigarette during a changeover in 1812.... or a 3 second Youtube clip... a a heresay statement made by a peer. Ok, I'm exaggerating a little but you get the drift.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
    #26
  27. SgtJohn

    SgtJohn Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    230
    Kramer, with all due respect - there are few guys in tennis I respect as much-, was pretty cocky, just as Budge (see a quote I posted a year or so ago where he confidently says he would easily have handled all the Borgs and Sampras of the world).
    He was a great player, undeniably, but talking him up as a potential GOAT is actually considering only his peak, and totally forgetting about longevity. 2 simple facts:
    -in 1947, Kramer judged himself that he was not yet on Riggs's level, ie not yet the top player. He was already 26, so even according to the criteria of the time that makes him kind of a late bloomer.
    -he was unfortunately plagued by back problems and after 1950 he could never play during long stretches at a time. He almost didn't play in 1952, and just the first half of the year in 1953. Except for some small tour later on, he was practically retired by the summer 1953, at 32.
    -Kramer was a tremendous tour player, the guy practically invented modern percentage tennis. But he was not immune to inexplicable big-match losses, eg Wembley 1952 or the US Pro 1950.

    So seeing him win 25 Majors is a huge stretch. This is not a putdown, just a statement that I don't see him in the upper echelon with the likes of Rosewall and Laver.
    To nuance what I just said, Kramer didn't play during the easiest era of tennis, but probably the toughest. In an Open context where he could have picked his tournament and preserved his health, his career could have been much better.

    Jonathan
     
    #27
  28. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Point taken.
     
    #28
  29. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    Kramer identified Federer as the best he has ever seen on more than one occasion. We have no reason to believe that he was joking in every instance.

    In any event, Kramer is just one distinguished former player. The problem for those who want to dismiss Federer's GOAT claims as being the product of a "weak era" and "choking" by his opponents is that many, many other journalists, coaches and former players share Kramer's view - Agassi, Becker, Bollettieri, Bruguera, Drysdale, Edberg, Henman, Lloyd, John McEnroe, Patrick McEnroe, Rusedski, Santoro, etc. Lendl is a bit more circumspect. His view is that Federer is the best of the Open era since Laver.

    Majorities, even majorities of experts, can be wrong, but you can't dismiss their views so easily just because you don't share them. There are simply too many experts who rank Federer as the best for you to make a plausible claim that they are all "dazzled by some match or something about the player." That would be insulting to these analysts, most of who have no ax to grind in the debate.

    I've made a point of finding out what experts say, partly because it is intrinsically interesting to know what analysts' views are but also because it puts debates on this and other forums in perspective. It is often stated or implied here that only the young, the naive and the uninformed believe that Federer is the GOAT. That view is simply wrong, as shown above. Anyone who wishes to post a list of experts who believe that Sampras or Borg or Rosewall is the GOAT is free to do so. I suspect that those lists would be far shorter and less distinguished than mine, although I made no great effort to identify all of Federer's admirers.

    Gonzalez and Rosewall are not like Wagner. They played only a couple of generations ago, and many analysts are familiar with their achievements. For example, much of the support for Rosewall's GOAT claims in this forum comes from posters who equate pro "majors" with Open era ones and hence credit Rosewall with 23 "majors." There are legitimate reasons to question this assumption, as I have done on other occasions. No one doubts that Rosewall was a very great player, but (outside of this forum) there has NEVER been a substantial group of tennis analysts who identify him as the GOAT. This was true while he was playing (1950's to 1970's) and in all subsequent periods.

    I don't think that the GOAT debate is or ever will be over, and if I were forced to choose today I would opt for Laver, not Federer. Nevertheless, many of the arguments being made against Federer's claims seem to me to be wide of the mark.
     
    #29
  30. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    The Honus Wagner thing is a bit far fetched. I am a huge baseball fan and I agree Honus Wagner is an all time great but saying he is greater than Ruth...

    They played different positions completely but Ruth was not only a great outfielder he was also a top notch pitcher and very well the best pitcher in 1916 and one of the top 5 in 1917. There was no doubt about him being one of the most dominant pitchers in the 1915-1930s but he was turned into a hitter because he was great at that. Ruth was one of the few consistent pitchers having 4 strong seasons in a row and they put the stop to him pitching so he could become an everyday hitter and to this date some of his seasons still have not been matched..even with steroids. Ruth remains to be the best power hitter and probably one of the first as well..Ruth invented power hitting. Wagner one the hand is probably not even the best contact hitter as Ty Cobb was a much better contact hitter, though Wagner may be the best shortstop of all time, requiring Jeter does not better him, but Wagner is not by no means a better hitter than Ruth. It wasn't till Ruth raised the bar that others started to as well. For years Ruth could not be matched and with steroids only few could match him, that shows a lot. People can sight the pitching but nobody was hitting tons of homeruns in the early 1900s besides Ruth until Ruth started doing it..until Gehrig came along the next best power hitters were Roger Hornsby, Tilly Walker, Bob Muesuel and Ken Williams..look at their numbers and compare. Ruth was far ahead of his field and far ahead of his time (with Hornsby being the second best thing, and the biggest thing for power but he was still more about contact and his homerun/rbi numbers were never too consistent.) The big thing about was Ruth also was he could hit for whatever he wanted (except maybe triples as he was not the fastest). Ruth had a great eye at the plate.

    Honus Wagner was a great contact and a damn good shortshop, probably best of all time (have to wait until Jeter is done but right now he looks like he has it locked up.) However just cause he is the best shortstop doesn't mean he is in GOAT contention. It is safe to say Ruth is the greatest offensive hitter of all time and one of the best outfielders and he was a great pitcher as well. Wagner was a great hitter but he was a contact hitter so he will always get a bit shafted. However judging him on that the problem comes with the fact that his batting average for his carrer at only .320 range is lower than that of Ruth and far lower than guys like Cobb, Williams and even lower than some newer contact hitters such as Suzuki, Gwynn etc. All time compared to other greats and outside of his high numbers of doubles and triples there is mot much to bolster him, sure he is great but against other greats his numbers seem to fall short. . Off hand Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Rogers Hornsby, Ted Williams, Stan Musial can easily claim the top 6 in some order. I would put Wagner probably 8th behind Hank Aaron. With currently Tony Gwynn/Pete Rose/Shoeless Joe and DiMaggio fighting for 10. Anyway my two cents on the baseball piece
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2010
    #30
  31. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    That's not true at all. There are plenty of people on this board who are knowledgeable about tennis from the other generations and have still concluded that Federer is the GOAT.

    Federer, has many things that people can point to and say he's the best. I mean he's won the most number of slams, he's reached the most number of consecutive grand slam semi-finals, he's won a major on every different surface, and with the exception of Nadal (and Murray back in 08 and early 09) he's dominated everyone in his generation.

    The only thing Laver really has on Fed, is the calendar year grand slam in 1969 and even that is now in danger of being broken.

    Saying Federer is the GOAT, is no longer an extreme or idiotic statement.
     
    #31
  32. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    Bill James is a great admirer of Honus Wagner, but in his Historical Baseball Abstracts he make it clear that he considers Babe Ruth to be the greatest player ever.
     
    #32
  33. jmjmkim

    jmjmkim Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Location:
    Cerritos, CA
    Vast information on tennis history here.

    Don Budge's name pops up in the musical, "Annie" which is set during the depression era. I think the song's title is "I'm Gonna Like it Here".

    I tried playing tennis in my jeans once, I sweated like a hog.
     
    #33
  34. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,446
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    man, i'm shocked too...



    ... simply because the best of all those guys of all time is McEnroe:
    [​IMG]
     
    #34
  35. goldenyama

    goldenyama Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    823
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    As far as I am aware, the only player of a major sport(yes, hugely more popular worldwide than baseball) that is so far ahead of anybody else who ever played the game as to be considered the undisputed GOAT by close to 100% of experts and fans alike is the cricketer Don Bradman. RIP.
     
    #35
  36. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Jonathan, I agree with you about Kramer and Budge. Budge was talking about how great he was to the end. NO ONE could be as great as he said he was. It still shocks me that he said to a friend of miine that Sampras wouldn't have won a set off of him when asked how he (Budge) would do against Sampras. Let's get real here. A number of non powerhouse players were able to beat Budge and he says that Sampras wouldn't win a set off of him?? Sampras would defeat a lot of all time greats consistently and there is no player in history with whom Sampras wouldn't have at least won a set off of. If Budge truly could do that to Sampras, he has WAY surpassed my GOAT qualifications. lol.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
    #36
  37. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,146
    pc1, with all due respect, you're wasting your time trying to reason with this guy. Just in case you haven't noticed, he's got two predictable shticks: 1) trotting out the opinions of the "experts" (who are actually prominent pundits) ad nauseam and 2) harping on the "objective evidence." 1) is simply brainless appeals to authority, and of course the "evidence" isn't as "objective" as he thinks, because it gains whatever value we assign to the stats, which is often rather subjective. And if the evidence were so objective we should rely on the authority of the "experts" even less, as anyone with some knowledge of tennis history should be analyze the stats on his own. He's just too dense to realize this incoherence of his argument.
     
    #37
  38. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    True. I generalized. There are some knowledgeable posters who would say Fed is the GOAT. (You know that I myself have Fed in the top-5 all time. Of course it is not idiotic, for some ingenues it is a bit too myopic or too much of a bandwagon phenomenon.)

    But IMO, if they are knowledgeable, they would not say that Laver or Rosewall is like a racehorse jockey compared to a formula 1 driver (Fed). If sports evolution were so uniform, pervasive, and irreversible then the present women's game would be the best of all-time because of the training, technology, diet, etc. Also, if this were true we would have to crown a new men's GOAT in 10 years, because of the ineluctable force of sports evolution.

    Players like Tilden, Laver, or Fed are somewhat produced by the "machine of the game," but I attribute their greatness more to their possessing unique elements of talent that cannot be manufactured by taking any nameless person from the worldwide gene pool and forcing them to practice and train for 10,000 hours.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
    #38
  39. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Good one. Mac is looking a little paunchy. (I didn't know Mac played at LSU; I'd thought it was Stanford. Oh well, wrong again.)
     
    #39
  40. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Nice post Hoodjem, as usual. I also rank Federer very high among the all time greats. He is a tremendous player and clearly a GOAT candidate.

    vive le beau jeu !,

    That's one of the all time great posts. lol.
     
    #40
  41. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,401
    Egn,

    My friend, I didn't say he was greater than Ruth and neither did Bill James. He discussed it in one of his early Historical Abstracts, citing one of his friends who considers Wagner as the greatest ever and thought it may be a possibility Wagner was greater than Ruth but only a possibility. James concluded Ruth was better but didn't leave out the possibility of his friend being correct about Wagner if memory serves. Interesting enough, in Bill James Win Shares Book Wagner has the best all time season in Win Shares at 59. I think James ranks Wagner number two all time. Edit-I just checked his most recent Historical Abstract and Bill James does rank Honus Wagner number two all time.


    It's my fault because in reading my post I realize I wasn't very clear and I can see how it could be very misleading. Sorry about that.


    Anyway that's beside the point. My point was that Wagner at times wasn't ranked high by experts but it didn't take away from his greatness. That is the same in tennis. Rosewall for example is often NOT ranked very high but it doesn't take away from his greatness. The same with Pancho Gonzalez. Often Rosewall and Gonzalez are left out of top ten lists in tennis. One expert ranked Roy Emerson above Rosewall as I recalled and he was a top tennis writer. I'm sure many experts have ranked Emerson over Rosewall simply because of the majors that Emerson won.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
    #41
  42. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,515
    Well, that's what happens when they do not even know the history of the sport they claim to love.

    They only know players of the moment.
     
    #42
  43. JoshDragon

    JoshDragon Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,235
    I think in the WTA, there are a lot of mentally weak, players out there. The Williams sisters and Justine are probably the mentally strongest of their generation and even they have plenty of lapses.

    The conditioning for the players in the current generation is probably better than it was for Graph or Evert but they don't have the drive, or toughness that Graph, Navritilova, or Evert did.

    As, for the mens side there is a huge difference, if you were to compare the players from the 60s with the players from the 00s. It's been pointed out many times but the players today are much bigger, taller, and they have harder, ground strokes & serves. They don't volley that well but they don't really need to. They can just blast winners right up the line, at pretty much any time they want.

    I think if Laver & Rosewall, had been born in the same generation as Federer, they would probably still have both been in the top 10 but I don't think either one would have been able to do well against Nadal, Djokovic, (on hard courts and maybe clay) Federer, or Roddick.
     
    #43
  44. David_86

    David_86 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    216
    Unbelievably stupid statement. Bradman may have been the greatest batsman but there are far more complete cricketers. Sobers is the name that springs first to my mind.
     
    #44
  45. jswinf

    jswinf Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,143
    It's likely, y'know, that if Laver & Rosewall had been born in the same generation as Federer that they'd have been bigger and stronger, too. Better nutrition, health care, etc. How about a 6-foot tall Rod Laver?
     
    #45
  46. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840

    You appear to believe that arrogance and insults are a substitute for argument. I don't share that view. I have never stated that expert opinion is definitive - in fact, I stated that it can be wrong. It does, however, provides a benchmark against which to measure discussion on this or other forums. For example, if posters claim that only the ignorant consider Federer to be the GOAT it is easy to show that this claim is wrong.

    Nor do I think that it is a simple matter to make comparisons on the basis of objective evidence. I argued that the number of titles won is not a good metric, because players in the past twenty years have focused increasingly on winning the big events rather than on amassing a large number of smaller titles. I don't know how we could compare Tilden and Federer or even Tilden and Laver, because the conditions under which they played were so different. We do, however, have to pay attention to the evidence of players' achievements, because if we don't we are left with subjective claims to the effect that "Joe Bloggs is the greatest player ever - I know because I saw him play or read an article by someone who saw him." At that point it's entirely reasonable to ask why Bloggs achieved so little if he was so great.

    If you reject both expert opinion and objective evidence, on what do you base your assessments of players? Your own intuitions? Sorry, but your posts provide little reason for anyone to trust them, since you appear to be incapable of constructing a coherent argument in support of your views. You might try to think about these issues before accusing other posters of being dense.
     
    #46
  47. CollegeBound

    CollegeBound Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    363
    The funny thing is that, when these threads occur, NONE OF YOU ever define greatness. All you ever do is make a statement. Whether you back it up with facts ('interpretations' would be a better word) or not, it's all the same. If you can't define greatness then you can't sensibly make any statement about it. Lacking that definition shows you don't really know what it is you're trying to make a statement about. That's why none of these threads, regardless of who initates them, are of any value at all.
     
    #47
  48. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    JD,

    Say it ain't so: "Graph" "Navritilova"? Oh well.

    "So I googled Rod Laver and this goofy-looking old guy came up wearing long pants. He certainly didn't look like like much compared to great Roger Federer leaping off the ground with both feet in the air smacking a killer forehand. (What an awesome shot in that still photograph.) So that settles it: I declare once and for all that Fed is the all-time GOAT."

    I think that's how the logical proof went.
     
    #48
  49. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Moved thread.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2010
    #49
  50. goldenyama

    goldenyama Professional

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Messages:
    823
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    There have been more complete cricketers but none came close to the statistical dominance of Bradman. He has no peers.

    If Bradman had averaged say, 70ish, with the bat then you could make a case for Sobers or Imran Khan being greater cricketers because they were great all-rounders, but his record is so ridiculously superior to any other batsman who ever played that he has no counterpart in any other major sport in terms of dominance.

    Just because a sportsman is more 'complete' doesn't make him better. There were more complete players than Sampras but he is unquestionably the greatest of his era.

    I am a kiwi by the way so I certainly don't have any bias in favour of an aussie being the GOAT:)
     
    #50

Share This Page