Who will still be considered a GOAT contender in 100 years' time?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Phoenix1983, Feb 17, 2014.

  1. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    And why would you be surprised? Fairly obvious isn't it? Federer is trying to keep Nadal at bay while Nadal is a FO win away from breathing down his neck. Being celebrities is the last thing on their mind.

    Now compare that to Sampras who was so far ahead of the pack in his era, he could afford to retire on his own terms and that's why he will always be in the GOAT discussion, even if he didn't win the FO. He dominated not just his era, but his generation, like no other. So put him back in please.
     
    #51
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,916
    Location:
    U.S
    very interested in BobbyOne's response now ... :twisted:
     
    #52
  3. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    Sampras was a great player, but let's not get carried away. He was never as dominant as Laver from 1967 to 1969, Borg from 1978 to 1980 or Federer from 2004 to 2007. To take the most recent example, Federer won 11 of the 16 majors played between 2004 and 2007, and also won the WTF in three of those four years. As such, he won 14 of the 20 most important events played over the period. He reached the finals in three others, was a semi-finalist in two more and held the No. 1 ranking, by a substantial margin, for every week from February 2004 onwards. When, precisely, did Sampras attain that level of dominance?
     
    #53
  4. Anti-Fedal

    Anti-Fedal Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,091
    This was Bud Collins Top 10 in September 2006. Not sure in which tennis magazine it was originally published in.

     
    #54
  5. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Actually abmk, I believe Collins does have Rosewall now in his top five. Robert Geist convinced him that Rosewall is a potential GOAT. That I can state. He still has Laver as number one however but I'm not sure of the rest of the order. I know Collins believes that Laver is number one currently.

    As far as this topic concerned I think the key to who is a potential GOAT is how dominant the player was in his or her era and what makes them stand out as a player. In other words, how far they are above the pack. If a player is barely number one for a few years it's hard to call him a potential GOAT. It's possible but doubtful.

    For example I do think Bill Tilden will be discussed as a potential GOAT one hundred years from now. Here's some of his stats.
    Tournaments won-161, an incredible amount, perhaps second only to Laver
    Winning percentage in best five year period-98%. That's astounding.
    Total Majors won including Pro Major-15. I'm including the World Hardcourt which was the clay court major of the time. That's incredible also considering players did often not travel overseas to play in all four majors because it would take weeks by boat.
    Percentage of tournament won in his career-estimated at 52%. Also incredible considered he played for a long time, into his fifties and rarely won tournaments at the end.

    Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was 93.6!

    Incidentally people talk about how Tilden had problems with Cochet and Lacoste but what isn't well known is that Tilden suffered a bad knee injury in 1926 playing Davis Cup. His knee was never the same again and it made a horrible sound when he played afterwards. Yet he was still great and was able to defeat the Frenchmen at times.

    When people discuss Laver they talk about his Grand Slams in 1962 and 1969, of which the Open Grand Slam in 1969 is the more impressive. I do think his Pro Grand Slam in 1967 was perhaps (maybe not) as impressive as the Open Grand Slam in 1969. The Grand Slams are what people think separates Laver from the pack.

    However this is where I disagree with the pack. The Grand Slams are awesome achievements and of course shows Laver's great dominance as a player but the achievement that I believe separates Laver from the rest of the pack is his 200 total (maybe even more) tournaments won. Just think about it, if a player played for twenty years and won ten tournaments a year he would only tie Laver. How many players play for twenty years? How many players ever even win ten tournaments in a year just once, let alone average ten tournament won in a year for twenty years. Just not as if Laver won weak tournaments either, Laver won at least 74 tournament in the Open Era alone and the Open Era started in 1968, when Laver would turn 30.

    There are a lot of other great achievements by Laver of course but to me the number 200 is staggering. Nadal's only won ten tournaments in a year twice. Federer's only done it three times. To average that for twenty years seems almost impossible.

    I will perhaps discuss other greats who may or may not imo be a GOAT contender a century from now.

    I will write however (and I don't have time to discuss it IN DETAIL now and frankly I may not discuss it at all) I think Pancho Gonzalez's great career stands out and will be thought of as a GOAT candidate a century from now. He has achievements that stand out. I write that because I believe at least one poster thought Gonzalez may be forgotten. Now that may be true because you can't predict the future but I do think if you analyze Gonzalez's career in the context of the times, how dominant he was and how great he was on all surfaces that he stands out.

    By the way all of these guys (Tilden, Laver and Gonzalez) do have the rep of almost being superhuman which doesn't hurt when people read about them in the future. Guys like Nadal and Federer also have that type of reputation. Whether they all deserve it is debatable but like I wrote earlier, it doesn't hurt.

    Lebron James has that rep of being superhuman in basketball today as did Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain in the same sport. Bobby Fischer had that in chess. Babe Ruth had that in baseball. Jim Brown had that in NFL football. What do these guys have in common? They are all considered potential GOATs in their respective sports.

    Incidentally I do like to make a minor statement. I think a lot of this stuff about weeks at number one is far overrated which we discuss the greatness of a player. Let me try to give an example in numerical terms. Let's say a baseball team leads for the entire season and still has a one game lead with two games to go with the teams playing each other. We'll call the leading team team A. We'll call the second place team team B. The second place team (team B) wins the second to last game and now the two teams are tied for first place. Team B wins the last game and wins the division. How many days did team B lead the division by itself? Answer, one day. However many days did team A lead the division? Probably around 160 plus days.

    So if you go by days in first or weeks in first you go with team A. By the current tennis logic of weeks in first is important team A had the FAR better season than team B. It didn't mean a thing and was really unimportant. Team B won the division.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2014
    #55
  6. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Good analogy.

    Seems pretty convincing.
     
    #56
  7. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Baseball doesn't have a rolling ranking though. Being at number one whether it's March, September of at the end of the season in Novemeber means that you were the best player over the last 52 weeks. I put more stock on ending the year at #1 but reaching #1 and holding it for a long amount of time is a feat in itself. Especially consecutive weeks at #1 IMO. That means that for the duration of your reign there was no period where no other player could be argued to out preform.

    As for Laver, his 200 tournament wins are impressive. But many of the pro tournaments were much smaller events with tiny fields. The make up of the tour was different and allowed him to play so many tournaments. He obviously had many losses throughout the season. It's not quite the same under as under today's conditions.
     
    #57
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    And that is why I wrote that Laver won at least 74 tournaments in the Open Era alone. That was from 1968 on, the year he would turn 30. Laver was past his peak or over the hill for most of the Open Era if not all of it. So it's probable to me that he would have won 200 tournaments or at least approach that anyway.

    As far as the rolling ranking is concern, a second player can always be close to the top player but the top player can be number one by a fraction. Still feel it's WAY overrated. On the Women's tour Jelena Jankovic became number one because she accumulated a lot of points by playing a lot. The system can be very flawed also.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2014
    #58
  9. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    They still played many more tournaments in the early days of the open era though didn't they?

    I don't see why being narrowly ahead of a player across a year should count against anyway? The same can be said of YE #1 anyway. You could be lagging behind for most of the year and then make a real push at the end of the season to pick up minor tournaments/points and edge ahead. This is where knowing your history comes in, there's plus points for edging ahead of a strong #2 IMO. Then there are also plus points for thoroughly dominating a space of several years by far.

    Whether you achieve #1 at the end of a season or you achieve it at some other point is still means you were the best player during across an entire 52 week period. There's nothing overrated about that IMO. Especially when you have players logging in over 200 weeks of such dominance.

    Winning lots of tournaments is impressive but without the knowledge of the fields and draws etc...we can't really critique it. I will say that winning 78 titles after 30 is ludacris no matter the draws. But I take it with a slight pinch of salt.
     
    #59
  10. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    Exactly. Weeks at #1 is a valuable statistic, but consecutive weeks at #1 is even better, because it shows dominance - that is, the extent to which a player separates himself from the rest of the field. The only drawback is that this statistic is only available from the mid 1970's onwards, and some of the rankings from the 70's and early 80's were questionable. But there's no obvious reason why we should accept year end #1 rankings but not weekly ones. The same limitations apply in each case. For example, Justine Henin was ranked #1 at the end of both 2006 and 2007. Some analysts questioned her ranking for 2006, because she won only one major while Mauresmo won two. In 2007 she was called the female Federer as her dominance was compared to his in one of Federer's great years. Yet both 2006 and 2007 are counted equally as years in which she was #1. If anything, the weeks at #1 statistic is to be preferred where available, since it is more fine grained than the year end #1 one.

    By contrast, the number of tournaments won is not a very good metric for comparing players across generations. As has been pointed out several times, today's players enter far fewer tournaments than did their predecessors, and they tend to appear in the SAME tournaments. There are no divisions between amateur and pro ranks, no rival pro tours, no boycotts and no bans. The four majors are mandatory, and nobody refuses an invitation to the WTF. Most players structure their schedule around the majors, the WTF and the Masters 1000 events, and these tournaments always draw extremely strong fields. Some ATP 500 tournaments such as Dubai also attract strong fields. Exhibitions are not counted in the list of titles won by contemporary players, and four or eight man invitational events have virtually disappeared.

    As a result, "big" tournaments account for a substantial share of the titles won by today's top players. Federer's 77 titles include 17 majors, 6 WTF's and 21 Masters. Nadal's 61 titles include 13 majors, 26 Masters and an Olympic Gold medal. Djokovic counts 6 majors, 3 WTF championships and 16 Masters in his 41 titles. The share of "big" tournaments - that is, tournaments in which most of the world's leading players participated - is very high in each case, much higher than it would be for players from earlier eras.

    This is not meant as a criticism of players from earlier eras - least of all Laver, a man whose resume has fewer weaknesses than that of anyone else and whose GOAT claims are as strong as could have been established by any player in his era. Professional tennis was organized very differently, and less efficiently in the past than it is now, and that is not the fault of any individual player. It does mean however, that the number of titles won is a limited analytical measure when comparing players across generations. Laver's 200 titles should be regarded as similar to Cy Young 511 victories as a pitcher - an amazing accomplishment, but not necessarily definitive of GOAT status. Fortunately, Laver has other achievements that establish his status in the game's history.
     
    #60
  11. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    UK
    I really disagree with your analogy. As has been pointed out, tennis does not work on an annual league basis, it has rolling years, and there is no requirement for players to play all events. Therefore in your analogy Team B (actually Player B) could scurry around playing lots of minor events which Player A is not bothering with, just to get enough points. That would give them more points, but would they really be better? Didn't Sampras do something like that one year?

    Also, under the current system, Player A could have a stellar year and end up thousands of points ahead of Player B, then have a very moderate year compared with Player B, yet stagger to year end just ahead. They would have two years as #1 at year end, but were they really the best player two years in a row - no, they weren't

    That is why any one metric alone is flawed and you have to consider the totality of a player's achievements - year by year and over the whole career, IMO.

    FWIW I agree pretty much with Bud Collins 2006 list referenced above, except I personally would not distinguish between them because I think it is impossible, and I would now add Federer (obviously), certainly drop McEnroe (just not a big enough body of achievement compared with the others), and regretfully Connors (I think Rosewall shades him in everything). Nadal - we'll have to wait and see, but I'd like to see him either dominate longer than he has, or gain a much bigger total of major victories. He doesn't need to do both - there are many ways to be special.

    As for who will still be being discussed in 100 years, I really think it is in the lap of the gods, and what is considered important at that time. I always say polls about 'Who is the greatest X?' don't tell you anything about who is the greatest, they just tell you the demographics of who is being polled. So with tennis greats you will get different answers if those being polled are eg Australian, or American, or English-language speaking, or born in 1940, or 1960, ,or 1980, or 2000....
     
    #61
  12. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    556
    Location:
    UK
    Very much agree. I think you hit several nails on the head.
     
    #62
  13. droliver

    droliver Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    688
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL U.S.A.
    It's absolutely ridiculous to make the argument that 1) only majors count and 2) Sampras' relative lack of consistency during the season and across surfaces is not a valid reason to rank him below other players.

    Sampras was the best player for nearly a decade, but he's been passed by Federer and Nadal in the pecking order clearly. Unfortunately, I think he's vulnerable to falling continually down these GOAT lists as his successors have been more consistently dominating on a day to day basis.
     
    #63
  14. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Sampras was consistently successful throughout his career, except for the first two years and his last two years, ie his bookend years. And even in those bookend years, he still managed to win a slam in each bookend. However in between, he was the dominant player over a 10 year period. Yes he never won as many slams as Federer and he never won the career slam, but who did after Laver and before Agassi? The slam surfaces differed so greatly they were like night and day. Agassi is the only player after Laver and before the homogenisation of courts to win the career slam and look what Sampras did to him. Sampras also did not allow one player to dominate him and there was no player in his prime years who was racking up slams with regularity because Sampras won his fair share and because the homogenisation didn't allow anyone to dominate all 4. During Sampras' time, there was no other player to compete with Sampras over who was the greatest in that time, Sampras was the clear cut winner. Sampras, daylight, then Agassi.

    In this era, with homogenised courts, we already have 2 career slam winners and soon to be a third when Djok eventually wins the FO. We have 2 players playing right now who could stake a claim to GOAT so how can there be a true GOAT, even if we were just looking at this era and forgetting every other? It's true that Federer dominated a 4 year period like no other, between 04-07, and there were suggestions at the time he could play and dominate until he was 40, that he was virtually unbeatable away from the FO and that he could rack up as many as 30 slams. However along came some players with real talent, Agassi-like talent, players who weren't there in 04-07, and Federer has slowly but surely been reeled in. Yea I know he's old now but he was well on the way to being reeled in before he got 'old'. So I see Federer's career in 2 phases, the pre Nadal/Djok/Murray phase where he doninated and the Nadal/Djok/Murray phase where he's just another player. Sampras outside of his bookend years was never just another player. These 3 have shown that Federer is in fact beatable. Had they been around in 04-07 it is extremely doubtful we would have seen Federer as the invincible player everyone thought him to be at the time.

    Sampras had to beat Agassi to win his first and final slam. Agassi is a tennis great. He has the career slam, DC, a WTF and the Olympic Singles Gold, and he played against Sampras' every step of the way. Would be interesting to see how things would be right now If Nadal had played Federer every step of the way.

    Make no mistake about it, Sampras deserves to be in any GOAT discussion, he may well be behind Laver and Federer and that's always up for debate (Sampras won 6 world championships and never got owned by his greatest rival) but he certainly deserves to be in the GOAThood group.
     
    #64
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, You truly are a little devil! You are not interested in my opinions and expertise at all. You only are interested to blame me where you can. Nevertheless you virtually never have disproved the Vienna Visionary...

    You are not only arrogant but also rather nasty!

    Even true experts can change their opinions in the course of the years.

    When asking Bud Collins only a year or so ago if Tilden, Gonzalez, and Laver are his top candidates for GOAT he answered "Yes. And Kenny".

    Stop trolling, abmk!!!
     
    #65
  16. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,112
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    There are plenty of GOAT candidates from throughout tennis history. It is fatally flawed to use modern day criteria when it comes to evaluating the achievements of players from distant eras.

    Laurie Doherty was the first player to win Wimbledon and then cross the Atlantic Ocean and win the other big tournament over there (the US Championships at Newport, Rhode Island), or vice versa. This was a huge historical achievement in tennis terms, and the greatest of the age.

    Tony Wilding was the first player to dominate outside of his own native continent. Another huge historical achievement which broke new ground.

    Players like Doherty and Wilding are GOAT candidates, because of how huge their achievements were.
     
    #66
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Yes. Thanks for this explanation.
     
    #67
  18. Joeyg

    Joeyg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    748
    Location:
    Sarcasm, USA
    For my money, the person that was certainly on his way to becoming the GOAT on Talk Tennis was Fedace!
     
    #68
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Anti-Fedal, Yes he did.
     
    #69
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, I'm not sure if Collins published that tournament. I rather think it was compiled by Steve Flink or a small panel. I have not seen that tournament list since almost ten years though...
     
    #70
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    poofytail, Could it be that you have a (too) short view of facts and history?
     
    #71
  22. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    True, we always get pass those big achievements.If we wore 1900´s glasses, they would seem to us enormous, which is exactly what they were.
     
    #72
  23. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, I'm disappointed. I do know you are one of the best posters in these forums, a great expert about tennis history and very objective.

    But in this posting you wrote a few strange things. You claim that a player who dominates only for a few years hardly can be called a potential GOAT.
    This would mean you exclude Rosewall who was only two years very dominant (even though he was a co-No. 1 for some more years) as a GOAT candidate. This contradicts some of your earlier posts where you wrote that Rosewall is a true GOAT candidate, even a very good one.

    You also write that Laver's 200 victories separates him from the rest. I have not time enough for the moment to contra-argue but I recently did it in another thread. There are a few reasons at least why Laver accumulated so many more tournament wins than Rosewall (at least 137) has done.

    I got a bit the impression here that you are a bit Laver biased, unlike to earlier times..
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014
    #73
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    My goodness, I mentioned just a few players, not all of them. How can I mention every player in one post? At that my other post on this was very long. I probably would have gotten to Rosewall later. Must everything be Rosewall first? I think a few players may be thought of as GOAT contender in a century.

    You did not interpret what I wrote correctly. I didn't say 200 makes him definitely better than the pack but 200 is a number that to the layman and experts too is impressive like Steve132 indirectly proved in talking about Cy Young's 511 victories in Major League Baseball. The number 511 made Young memorable.

    Now I would normally expound on what may or may not separate Rosewall from the pack but I'm not sure if I will do that now because you have done a good job of that. To me it's not Rosewall's 23 majors but Rosewall's nine straight winning majors that is memorable. The question you have to ask for yourself is what's the tougher task, winning 23 majors or winning 9 straight majors? I think the latter. Winning 9 straight majors whether it's classic majors or Pro Majors or a combination shows dominance.

    There are a few players I think had have some great accomplishments that should distinguish them from others. I didn't even mention the ones about Pancho Gonzalez. Am I to be accused of being anti-Pancho Gonzalez? Far from it.
    The key is not necessarily what makes a player the GOAT but what makes them memorable as a potential GOAT in the future in this thread. You confuse that with what makes a player a GOAT. Thus the number 200 for Laver. A Grand Slam can be done and be done twice but winning 200 tournaments almost seems impossible. Winning nine straight majors is herculean whether it be regular or Pro Major. It's when a player accomplishes what seems to be a herculean task. That's what makes a player memorable as a GOAT candidate imo a century from now.


    Too many things are read into my posts that aren't there.
    This is why I don't post much. Things aren't always Rosewallcentric.
    Steve132,

    First of all I think your analogy with Cy Young proves my point in a way. You immediately knew the number 511 as associated with Cy Young. While I don't think Cy Young is the best pitcher ever he had often been called that because of the number 511. It's over a century later. Do you know much about Young except for 511? I'm not writing that to be mean but it shows what you know Cy Young for even if you know nothing else of him! Very few know much about Cy Young except for 511 wins.

    You must realize that I'm not writing that Laver's 200 immediately makes him the GOAT although it is a wonderful part of his great resume as a tennis player. What I am writing is that Laver's 200 total tournament wins is something that seems almost impossible to accomplish by anyone. Even in Laver's time that figure would be staggering. It is one of the accomplishments of Laver that sets him apart for a GOAT candidate. You can find that in a number of GOAT candidates in tennis or other sports. In basketball many consider Wilt Chamberlain to be the GOAT. It's because of a number of things but also because he averaged over 50 points a game in a season! That's one of the accomplishments that sets Chamberlain apart. Michael Jordan or Oscar Robertson would have perhaps other things to mention. In hockey you can list things about Orr or Gretzky that sets them apart. With Gretzky it's his great scoring ability. With Orr it would be his ability to control the flow of the game and his great plus-minus rating.

    Second, I don't think it's really that good an analogy. Pitchers in Cy Young's day played in the dead ball era when pitchers didn't have to throw hard thereby conserving their arms for another day. It's like serving underhand in tennis. It wasn't odd for pitchers then to start both ends of a doubleheader. Baseball pitchers today can't get away with that because of the lively baseball. They have to throw hard to win. More wear on the arm so they can't pitch as much.

    In Laver's time and also today players can play almost every week if they decide to. There's really no difference in the amount of tournaments a player can enter if they want to. The top players now do not play many tournaments because of many reasons but probably the top one is that they have huge amounts of money available. They don't have to play a lot of tournaments to make money like the players in Laver's time. Players like Vilas, Lendl, Nastase used to play many tournaments in one year just recently. Just because the top players decide not to play many tournaments doesn't mean they can't and that it is impossible. That's also what makes the record of 200 so tough to break.

    What makes a legendary figure memorable? It's when that figure accomplishes a superhuman feat. Winning 14 majors is not superhuman. I knew it at the time. It contributes to a player's legacy but it is accomplishments that seem mythical that allows players to be remembered. Babe Ruth in MLB called Home Run in the 1932 World Series is still discussed. Reggie Jackson is remembered as Mr. October for his 3 straight home runs off 3 pitches in the 1977 World Series. Many think Reggie is the GOAT of the postseason. Tilden is legendary is many ways. He is also the creator of modern tennis which helps his legacy. Lew Hoad is a legend because of the superhuman aura that he seemed to have. I don't think he's the GOAT yet many still think he may be the GOAT because of the impression he gave that if he was "on" he was unbeatable. It's over a half century since Hoad appeared and his legend still endures.
    My point is answering what will make a player as GOAT memorable a century from now as per the thread.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
    #74
  25. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I'm just going off this thread Bobby;

    http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=132584

    I can't find the actual article unfortunately. I would be interested in seeing the seeds etc...
     
    #75
  26. poofytail

    poofytail Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    369
    Nadal for sure, Djokovic maybe, but to use Murray as an example is laughable considering he didnt beat Federer in a slam for the first time ever until last year when Federer was already 31. I guess he could have impacted Federer's dominance in Masters to some degree in 04-07, but slams not a chance.
     
    #76
  27. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, No, nothing must be Rosewall first. Who has demanded such a thing? Not even a Rosewall admirer like me...

    You not only are a first class tennis expert but also a fabulous jester! You write that things are not always Rosewallcentric. That in a LAVER forum.....

    When writing a player dominating only a few years is hardly a GOAT candidate, you yet excluded players like Rosewall. Yes, Muscles achieved that marvellous feat of winning 9 straight pro majors 1960-1963 but in the first two of those years he was toughly matched by Gonzalez.

    I just got that "pc1 Laver bias" impression because your focussing at that 200 victories feat seemed to me a bit unfair as Laver was more favoured to amass them than Rosewall and especially Gonzalez have been. In some of the latter's years there were not many tournaments at all. Also you know about the advantage Laver had to win his two classic Grand Slams in respect to Gonzalez and Rosewall.

    You write: "I did not say 200 makes him definitively better than the pack".

    No, you did write:"the achievement that I believe separates Laver from the rest of the pack is his 200 total tournaments won". Well, as far as I understand English, it means totally the same!!

    You yet wrote about Gonzalez. "A GOAT candidate a century from now". "He has achievements that stand out". I concede you did not list them up.

    I did not confuse anything! I did not write about what makes a player a GOAT.

    Anyway, Rosewall made several herculean tasks, among them winning more majors than any other male player!

    It would be a great pity if you would not post or very seldom post in the two forums as all the serious posters and readers know that you are a great asset to Talk Tennis!!!

    But please understand those (few) posters who contradict you from time to time.
     
    #77
  28. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Did you even read what I wrote in post 74? I did write that about Rosewall and his majors but I pointed out the one thing I felt was his nine consecutive majors. My point is that every top player that may be a GOAT may have different aspects of their resume that makes them stand out. With Laver it is the number 200, with Rosewall it's 9 straight majors. The other things like 23 majors or Calendar Year Grand Slams add to it but in my opinion is not quite as impressive.

    You still don't get my points.

    Do people understand what I'm getting at or am I simply explaining it poorly?
     
    #78
  29. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    19,939
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    I think pc1 is saying that Laver's 200 wins separate him from the pack and not that Laver's 200 wins is the sole thing that definitively and without argument separates him from the pack in a more profound way than any other achievements sets apart any other great player from the same pack.

    It is an achievement that sets him apart from the pack in the same way that some other players have similarly megalithic achievements. Various players can be argued to currently hold achievements that will stand the test of time and many of them have already been doing so for at least 50 or so years.

    pc1 , you seem a serious guy. I think too serious, and take things a bit too personally... as many of us can do, but to the extent that it makes you so annoyed that you just don't want to post here. We're all in the same boat of having our opinions and statements of things being judged by highly critical standards and from objective and subjective standpoints. I don't want to be patronising but.. that's life. What I'm saying is: I think frankly it's important that you do post more here despite the sometimes fierce questioning that will come your way. As much as it can be a burden, it's also a huge sign of respect. If you need to ignore certain people then so be it, but at the same time, the people who respond directly to you do not nearly account for the much greater number of people who are lurkers here or still read what you (and others) have to say and take note of it.

    Your standards are exacting and high regarding accuracy and quality of content not only of yourself but also of others -- perhaps too high in that you become easily disillusioned.

    I would appreciate a direct response to this post (we have shared absolutely minimal discourse).
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014
    #79
  30. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    Yes, that's exactly what I mean. A few players have GOAT credentials imo like Rosewall (for you BobbyOne) but what I was trying to point out was some players may have something in their resume that may make them super memorable a century from now. Of course it's the combination of all achievements and level of play which puts a player in consideration to be the best of all time.

    Some examples are Rosewall's nine majors in a row, Navratilova winning six consecutive majors in the Open Era, Graf winning the Golden Slam, Laver's 200 tournament wins, Tilden never losing a big tournament in his best years, Gonzalez's seven head to head tour victories. Of course these greats have other fantastic achievements to add to these great feats but imo these achievements may make them memorable a century from now.

    I was trying to fit the parameters of the thread by Phoenix1983.

    As far as what you wrote about me Nathaniel, you have a good point. I was a little frustrated with BobbyOne when he didn't get what I was writing. BobbyOne is an excellent poster and he knows his stuff. Thanks Nathaniel. :)
     
    #80
  31. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    I'm certain that Laver and Rosewall will still be discussed in decades by tennis fan because right now theirs achievements are so outstanding that I can't agree with the ones you single out as the more outstanding. 9 straight majors is awesome, but 20ish majors is too, as it is a total that has yet to be reached! Similarly, while 200 total tournaments won is mindblowing, winning a goddam calendar slam is too!

    Hats to them.
     
    #81
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Rosewall 9 straight is just the ones he competed in. It's not a proper streak really...Federer has 20 majors too if we're counting amateur achievements then YEC's surely count.

    If people really valued those achievements Rosewall would have been ranked higher on that Crap tennis channel list. He won't he considered a GOAT contender in 100 years time as he's not widely considered one now. The list of people considered contenders today will likely shrink as new greats emerge.
     
    #82
  33. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,156
    Well he was undefeated in the pro majors he entered in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963. It's a streak to me.

    As for the majors, for the few of us who see him as a strong Goat contender, we consider that some of the WTC finals he played can count in his total majors counts and we don't apply the same rule for Federer, who had 4 clear majors to play in each years. So counting the master cup would "counter" the weak "normalization" we do.

    As for the tennis channel list, I don't know what where their criterions were and I wonder if they had any. Their is so many things I disagree with this list I can't begin to mention them. I think this list is a very "broad public oriented" one and doesn't satisfy by any means the true tennis fan craving for list that I am.

    Therefor, whatever their list, Rosewall is one of the most serious Goat contender, while the seven best male player ever according to this list (Agassi) is not.
     
    #83
  34. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    I'm not saying it's not impressive but if Federer skipped the FO from 06 onwards he would have had a streak of 8. So while impressive its not as impressive to me. The pro majors while important weren't so lopsidedly prestigious as the 4 Slams are in todays tennis.

    I think the WCT titles should certainly count! Much more than his amateur majors. The thing is its not like Rosewall didn't play 4 majors at times, he obviously won several Austalian Opens. I've said it before I prefer to say the likes of Federer, Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales have comparable numbers of majors. I value present day masters titles as much as amateur slams really. Titles won without the top players are hollow.

    That's the point though, those who are viewed as GOATs must have that perception with a wide audience. Being a minority GOAT isn't a GOAT at all. The fact is despite his stellar record and achievements Rosewall isn't considered a GOAT contended by most. His position in history will not improve with time. It likely decline.

    Unless the new generation are serious tennis historians sadly greats like Pancho and Ken will be sidelined in future debates. Probably more than they already are. So no Rosewall won't be considered a GOAT contended in 100 years time, he's not even considered one now.
     
    #84
  35. Vcore89

    Vcore89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    The synapse
    Assuming no one else wins CS in the next century but the total GS won by an individual reached 25, people are still going to say Rod is the only 2 time CS winner, thus GOAT!
     
    #85
  36. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Anytime you bring up Laver's and Rosewall's accomplishments and don't mention Federer, you are trying to diminish Fed's achievements. Anytime you bring up Gonzales's and Tilden's accomplishments and don't mention Federer, you are trying to diminish Fed's achievements.

    You're not fooling me. I see through your secret plans.

    No one can ever mention "greatness" in a sentence and not mention Federer! It is not possible, unless you are trying to belittle the great Federer.
    :twisted:

    You have been warned.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014
    #86
  37. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    We're talking about GOAT contenders and also number of major wins. Ofcourse Federer is going to be mentioned. I never claimed anyone was being diminished...

    :evil:
     
    #87
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Even if a person is not considered now (or in his time, for that matter) as a GOAT contender (in tennis and elsewhere) he or she can be considered that way in 100 years time. I f.i. think of people like Shakespeare, Hieronymus Bosch, Franz Schubert and a certain Jesus...
     
    #88
  39. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Bosch? Bosch?

    You dare mention Bosch and not mention Federer?! How dare you. This is sacrilege. Does Bosch have 17 majors? Does Bosch have 302 weeks at no. 1?

    You obviously KNOW NOTHING about tennis and have not even played since 1516.
    :evil:
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014
    #89
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Rosewall missed several open Grand Slam tournaments where he would have been at least a Co.-favourite: AO 1970, French Open 1970, FO 1971, US Open 1971, French Open 1972, Wimbledon 1972.

    I wonder that you think a minority GOAT cannot be a GOAT at all! GOAT means that he/she is the best of all times even if the majority of people disagree. The majority of tennis fans claim Roger is GOAT but there are some facts that contradict or even disprove that claim.
     
    #90
  41. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    This is ofcourse true, it would be nice if the standards of sports journalism improved over the next 100 years. However I think the media will always tout present day champions over past champions. Even the past players do it to publicise the game.


    Why did Rosewall miss those tournaments? It's a shame he didn't play and win some of those, all arguments might have been put to bed then ;)

    I'm not saying Rosewall or another minority GOAT as you put can't be a GOAT at all. My point is that Rosewall's name is spoken of in a very small circle of experts. Historical awareness of him is likely to decrease not increase as people grow old and sadly die.

    I don't think there are facts that disprove Roger is a GOAT, opinions perhaps but not facts. You can discredit anyone if you try hard enough. I engage in it abit myself but it is best not to.

    I hope that players like Rosewall, Gonzales and Tilden are more widely appreciated in the future. They obviously have done much for the game of tennis. I just feel it's wishful thinking to believe in 100 years people will have realized they're some of the greatest. We also have to remember that in the next 100 years players may emerge with records that eclipse all others before them.
     
    #91
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, No, I did not read your post 74. I asked my 5 years old daughter to do it for me. She was ready enough to read your post and told me about its contents. Then I responsed to your post...

    I think that winning 23 majors is as great as winning 9 majors in a row. We should not neglect the fact that Rosewall would have got tough opposition in the 1960 to 1962 US Pro by Gonzalez and Hoad.

    So only two super years remain at Rosewall and you are still strange in claiming that a player with only two or three very dominating years cannot be the GOAT. This would mean: Rosewall is not a GOAT candidate! I'm a bit confused because I do know that you yet rate Muscles a true GOAT contender. So please reflect again about your statement about a player with only 2,3 dominating years.

    You did not comment my explanation that Laver was a bit favoured in winning 2 classic Grand Slams and 200 titles.

    You did not comment or contradict my quotation of your two sentences (one in the earlier post as a clear claim and the other in the following post as a kind of "disproving" my quotation which actually has only reported your own words) about the Laver 200 titles which "separate" Rod from the rest of the pack... Both your two sentences meant the same but you saw a difference in the meaning of those two sentences. Rather astonishing. But I concede that you never used the WORDS "200 makes him definitely better".

    You probably think I am a neurotic person who is meticulously trying to find weak points in your postings. That's wrong. I just am used to read exactly and to think exactly. I confess through this quality I already lost a few friends...

    I got your points. Please also get my points.

    It happens VERY seldom that you are explaing poorly what you are getting at, but this time it really happened a few times.

    But a greater problem in my eyes is that you sometimes seem you have difficulties to deal with persons who dare to contradict you. I just remember your reaction when abmk (who is often unfair, I concede) contradicted you: You stopped posting for a longer time.

    Please don't take my words as a provocation. I just write as I think.
     
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014
    #92
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Thanks.

    Rosewall missed some majors by different reasons: boycotts by ATP and WCT, personal reasons.

    I'm not sure that people (Phoenix among them) would change their mind about Rosewall in case Muscles would have won 26 or even 35 majors...
     
    #93
  44. Vensai

    Vensai Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,195
    Location:
    Mortis
    Quite possibly. it's an achievement only Laver has achieved in men's tennis.
     
    #94
  45. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,395
    BobbyOne,

    You are trying to find a dispute where there is none.

    I was trying to point out as per the parameter of the this thread which is titled "Who will still be considered a GOAT contender in 100 years time?" This is not necessarily a GOAT thread but it's asking who may be considered a GOAT contender. There is a difference.

    The point of when I was trying to make was that in order to be remembered in 100 years from now a GOAT contender should have some amazing stat that floors people in the future. I was just discussing ONE stat but if you want you could talk about a dozen stats about a player. Perhaps I should have discussed Rosewall first. My one stat with Ken Rosewall that I thought would floor (and by floor I mean amaze) people in the future would be the nine straight majors (that he entered) that he won. Now if you want to include other statistics about Rosewall that's fine. I of course easily concede Rosewall is a GOAT candidate but that wasn't the point of my post. This post of mine was opinion on what would amaze people in the future. If you feel the 23 majors and the 9 consecutive majors wins are equally impressive, that's fine with me.

    I concede to all your points because there was never anything to argue about.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2014
    #95
  46. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Oh look, it's the supposedly objective pc1 finding another way to disparage modern players like Federer and Sampras (one of whose main achievements is weeks spent as #1) in favour of his beloved legends of yesteryear...

    The only unimportant thing here is your analogy. There is no "division" to be won in tennis, the rankings are done on a rolling 52-week basis and reflect who has been the best player over the last 12 months. You're not telling me that if a player won, say, the USO and YEC in Year 1, then the AO and FO in Year 2, that the player wouldn't deserve to rank #1 by the summer of Year 2? (Even if another player won W and USO in Year 2, and finished YE #1, it would not negate the dominance of the first player).

    No surprise that you listed Tilden, Laver and Gonzales as those most likely to be ranked near the top in 100 years. Like other veteran posters here, you give no respect to more recent greats, most notably Sampras.

    It's a good thing that I am on this forum to balance the books at times. :-?
     
    #96
  47. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    How has Sampras "clearly" been passed by Nadal? He leads Nadal in all the following metrics:

    Slams: 14 vs. 13
    Wimbledon: 7 vs. 2
    US Open: 5 vs. 2
    Aussie: 2 vs. 1
    YEC: 5 vs. 0
    YE #1: 6 vs. 3
    Wks at #1: 285 vs. 130 (approx, don't know precise values)
    Titles: 64 vs. 62

    Nadal has more FOs, more Masters series, more Davis Cups (although they've both won it) and the Olympic Gold (which was less important in Sampras' day).

    Most notably he has greater surface versatility than Sampras, and arguably had tougher competition, which may negate some of the stats above i.e. wks/yrs as #1.

    However, to say he has "clearly" surpassed Sampras is ludicrous.
     
    #97
  48. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Great post. Sampras is the most disrespected of all the GOAT contenders here.
     
    #98
  49. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    You can continue to degrade Sampras but it's a good thing we don't live in a dictatorship, because I will continue to disagree with your disparagement of him and consider him one of the top 3 players of all time.

    Edit: Seriously, why did you make that cheap shot which was obviously referring to Sampras?
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2014
    #99
  50. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,668
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    14 majors plus 5 YEC, thats alot of big titles. Saying 14 majors isn't superhuman is slightly narrow minded IMO. Considering only Federer has won more slams in FULL fields.
     

Share This Page