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. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    UK
    I can honestly say that no-one considered an expert ignored the pro tour. If they did then, by definition, they were not in any way expert.

    It simply was not reasonable to consider the amateur game the equal of the pro game until the latter half of the 1960s, so only for a short period was there any doubt. Maybe 3, maximum 4 years, i.e. a few years after Laver turned pro, and before Open tennis. And of course the doubt was clarified immediately Open tennis started - the pros were better.
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    I don' t think DMP that any true expert rated the ams above the pros any year during the 60
    That does not mean that the best amateurs like Newcombe,Roche or Ashe wouldn' t have inmediate success once they became pros or that they could not win a major right from the start of the open era
     
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    DMP, I contradict: Almost all experts (or "experts" if you want) did ignore mostly or totally the old pro scene. Most (older) tennis books which I have wrote little to nothing about the pro tours and pro tournaments. Especially the pro achievements of great players were mostly omitted in the books and articles.

    Thus even top experts like Harry Hopman, Lance Tingay and Allison Danzig made all-time rankings where Emerson was considered but not Rosewall.

    Even nowadays well-known experts like those of Tennis Channel distort and neglect tennis history (with the exception of Bud Collins)!

    Also true tennis expert, our friend kiki, tends to overrate the amateurs and underrate the pros...
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I strongly doubt that an amateur could have won an open GS title before 1968 against the bastion of Laver and Rosewall. Even US Open winner Ashe was not that good till 1967.

    Remember that old L&R won every open major in the first two open years with the only exception of Ashe's win.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, You did not refer to my claim that every great achievement of a great player should be considered for his resume even if it is not his best and even equalled by another player. In the record of every great player you find several great achievements and only by summing up all of them shows the true picture of a player's greatness in comparison to other players' greatness.

    If you only consider Laver's greatest feat, his two or three GSs, you hardly can call him the GOAT f.i.

    You confuse me: Firstly you say that Rosewall has won "only" 18 majors (without his WCT titles) thus omitting his amateur majors but secondly you say that Laver's and Rosewall's amateur majors must be counted.

    Where is the logic? Laver & Rosewall YES but Emerson NO is unjust. The point that the formers are GOAT candidates and Emerson not is not convincing.

    Rosewall does not stand alone with his 20 majory won (your counting): Federer has won 23 majors if we include his WTF titles.
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Bobby
    I know the best pros were normaly better than the amateurs, but some few amateurs were at a comparable level as open tennis proved
    We need to find a balance here
    If I had to pounder achievements, I would multiply a pro major x 65% and an am major x 35%
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    I agree
    Of the 8 first open slams Laver won 5, Ashe 2 and Rosewall 1
     
  8. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    UK
    As someone who was in their 20s at that time, so old enough to know what was going on, all I can say is that in common conversation everyone 'knew' the pros were the best players on the planet. Whenever someone like Dan Maskell spoke about the tennis scene it was in terms that clearly recognised who the best players were. However someone like Hopman was very traditional and very much part of the tennis establishment (as was Dan Maskell) so they also wanted to promote the view of the establishment. Hopman was part of the Australian tennis establishment that was paying Emerson 'under the table' to stay amateur. So they had a vested interest in promoting the amateur game in their writings. It didn't change the fact that that we all knew the pros were the best.

    Around 1965/6 it was less certain because there was a lot of circling around the issue of tennis becoming open. No-one significant was joining the pro circuit and there were new rising amateurs - Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, etc - who would have been expected to move but stayed in the amateur game while they waited to see what happened. So around then doubts began to emerge whether the pros were still the best. Rosewall was in his 30s by then, Gonzales even older of course, and only Laver in his prime, but questions then about the quality of his opposition.

    Then when Open tennis started Rosewall won the French, there was the tournament at Eastbourne where Mark Cox beat a couple of top pros and there was huge excitement at the time about what all that meant. Then the pros, canny players that they were, paced themselves to the big wins. Even then life was not simple because the new money and rival groups meant that not all players played all tournaments, which is why the rankings by the experts were important, but at least by then most of the establishment bias had gone.

    As regards more recent 'experts' I am afraid I am very jaundiced in my views. I don't see any journalism now that shows really deep knowledge of tennis and its history. Most of is seems designed to reflect a 'now is the best you've ever seen' bias in order to generate on-line discussion, because hits to message boards equals more advertising income. I struggle to think of anyone writing now I would rate highly. In fact the most expert knowledge I see appears here on this forum.

    I am one of those who fell about laughing at the Tennis Channel list of top players that sometimes gets mentioned here. It was so ludicrous in parts it was laughable. But it wasn't surprising. No TV channel is going to produce a list which says that players who lived a long time ago, and only can be seen on grainy film, might be better than players you can see right now in the comfort of your home in bright HD supplied by - yes, that same TV channel. And no-one being paid by that channel to act as an expert is going to argue too much with the guidelines given by that channel on how they might rank players. Are they? So colour me highly unsurprised at the results.

    Going back to Rosewall. When he and Hoad burst on the scene, winning the amateur slams, I don't think anyone then considered them anything more than the best and brightest of the new generation of amateurs coming through. They were young, they were fresh, they were the new kids on the block. But the best in the world - no.

    This article makes a lot of things clear (and shows also how nothing much changes in tennis!

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1074521/index.htm
     
  9. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Now, Maskell had been himself a pro, only pro, never amateur, because he had given tennis lessons. He played against Tilden and Cochet on the pro tour. I think, he had a keen eye on the pro game, especially watching the the Wembley London pro, the preeminent pro tournament. For instance, Barrett and his master Maskell marvelled about Rosewall's fine performance against Olmedo in 1959 at Wembley, when he won 15 games running. Tingay and Danzig also watched the pro game, Danzig gave results of the pro tour in yearbooks of American encyclopedias, which i read. The first exhaustive solid summary of pro results, was made by Joe McCauley in 2001, mainly i think on the basis of the archive of World Tennis. Michel Sutter in his book "Vainceurs"- Winners had before (in 1990) given pro results, based on at least 8 men tourneys. He used the archive of L'Equipe as source.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2014
  10. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,094
    Yeah I don't know how to say clearly in english how I consider amateur majors vs pro majors and open era majors.

    In my mind "taking into account" the amateur majors is not equal to "counting" the amateur majors. So when I sum the total majors tally of Laver or Rosewall, I will count only the pro majors and the open majors, but not the amateur majors.
    BUT, when I think about them and reflect oh how they compare with other great, I take their amateur slams and amateur years into consideration. Something like: "Rosewall won 20 majors (15 pro majors, 3 open majors (not counting AO 1972, too weak a field), 2 WCT), and he did that with four good year of his youth robbed, which makes it even more impressive.

    So I don't count the amateur majors but I take them into account, which in french is different.

    For Federer I don't count his Master cup as majors because they are only the fifth most important tournament he entered each year. I try rather weakly to count majors only in the four most important event of each years for the sake of comparison between eras: as I don't count some AO because the field was too weak, it means than even if a player had won it I wouldn't award him with the win. So I need to replace the AO with another tournament.

    But it's not a very clear methodology and it can easily be contested.

    To me Rosewall stands alone in total majors won.
     
  11. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    UK
    Dan Maskell was a curious combination. As you say he had only ever been a pro, but he was also definitely an Establishment man also. He found the arguing and politics quite uncomfortable, I think. In that respect he was different from Perry (and Kramer on his visits to the UK) who were a lot more robust in their views! It all led to the big BBC falling out with Kramer when there was the boycott of Wimbledon in 73. I missed Kramer's commentaries, he was very insightful.
     
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I agree regarding 65% vs. 35%.

    I disagree that any amateur was at a comparable level with Laver and Rosewall in the years prior to open era.

    Ashe and Newcombe were the only two players coming from the amateurs who won a true open GS tournament out of the first ten besides L&R.

    Both Ashe and Newk improved significantly in 1968 and 1969 respectively.

    Ashe was not a force before 1968 even in the amateur ranks.
     
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Ashe's victory at the 1970 AO maybe cannot be considered as a true win of an open GS tournament because it had a weak field missing L&R and others.

    Of course also Rosewall's 1972 AO win is debatable for a similary reason.

    Laver and Rosewall won 8 out of the first 10 open GS tournaments where they participated (Rod took 5 and Ken took 3).
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    DMP, Maybe "everyone knew" but only very few wrote it!!

    In 65/66 there was no question about the quality of Laver's opposition as Rosewall was about equal with him and Rod had also to deal with Gonzalez, Gimeno, Hoad and Buchholz!

    Cox beat only one true pro at Bournemouth (not Eastbourne), Gonzalez who was 40 and had not played a five-setter for some years.

    Emerson was always an amateur till a few weeks before the first open tournament.

    I agree regarding current writers. Yes, many posters here are knowing more than the "official" writers.

    Tennis Channel: Why do they rank Laver 2nd but Rosewall and Gonzalez so low??
     
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, Rosewall demolished Olmedo in 1960.

    Why did Danzig rank Rosewall so low (behind Emerson, if I recall rightly)?

    I did not know that there are American yearbooks wherein Danzig gave pro results. Sounds interesting.

    World Tennis was indeed a main source for Joe McCauley as also was British magazine Lawn Tennis & Badminton.

    Sutter's book has many deficiencies: many missing pro tournaments.

    World Tennis unfortunately did not give all pro tours and tournaments. There are many gaps.
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Flash, Thanks a lot for the explaining that matter.

    It's a pity I don't speak French...

    You give a good solution regarding amateur majors' counting.

    But there still remains the case of Emerson and the other successful amateurs.

    Even as a non-admirer of Emmo I can't stand the view that he has won zero majors...

    Your judging the Masters Cup seems convincing. Carlo Colussi, pc1, Elegos and maybe a few others (sorry if I forgot one or the other), have made lists of the four best tournaments for every year, especially for the pre-open time.

    And like these and others (including me) you give Rosewall the No.1 spot for majors won. ;-)
     
  17. DMP

    DMP Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    UK
    History is not just what is written in books, you need many sources to get a true picture. That is why I attached the SI article. That was journalism with no axe to grind, and therefore a true reflection of how tennis was seen (in the US). Note how it was critical of tennis establishments everywhere. Also it acknowledged that the best players were the Australian duo, even though it was written by a US journalist. That gives it the ring of truth.

    But that was not the question at the time. At the time the question was how good were these compared with the new generation of amateurs. With the exception of Laver they were all getting old, and no top amateur (e.g. Emerson) had become a pro. With hindsight we know they were strong, but at the the time there were questions. That is why the start of Open tennis was so exciting. It produced new match-ups and allowed us to see who really were the top players on the planet.

    Of course. I was writing from memory and I remember it was a South Coast tournament. If he had been playing at Eastbourne he would have had to play in a skirt (unless he was Nancy Richey) and he didn't have the legs for it. Not a pretty sight! I actually watched the tournament on TV, in glorious black and white.

    As I have explained before, Laver is an easy player to insert to give the impression that players from the past have been given due recognition. Notice, though, how he only manages to be #2 in these sort of lists, never #1. I seem to remember the same when Sampras was all the rage as GOAT. I'm looking for the day Laver, or another player from the past ends up at #1 on one of these lists. I'm not holding my breath though :)

    You take things far too personally. Just accept that most people writing about tennis history actually know less than they think (with a few notable exceptions, mostly on this forum, as I have said).
     
  18. Anti-Fedal

    Anti-Fedal Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    The player that John McEnroe declares the GOAT ;)
     
  19. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,658
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I remember, in an interview, that Agassi once said Federer was the best he'd ever played, and offered that winning three slams in one year was better than Pete and an incredible achievement.

    He then went on to say that winning a Grand Slam was beyond human, a god-like achievement. Then he paused, thought, and mumbled that Laver did it twice.

    At this moment, he stopped, stupefied, and had no more words, suggesting that it was beyond his comprehension and beyond god-like.
     
  20. heninfan99

    heninfan99 Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,975
    Agassi very rarely comments on Sampras without some subtle dig.

     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    DMP, I take things only in those cases personally when posters like Phoenix, abmk and Russeljones permanently praise the current players, especially R.F,, and belittle the giants of older times, especially Rosewall. And of course (these two things are connected) when they try to dupe me in doubting my expertise with faulty and unfair and mean methodes...

    The S.I. article (thanks for linking to it) was obviously an exception.

    Usually the writers neglected or diminished the old pros.

    I remember an article in World Tennis by Linda Timms who claimed that she saw more interesting tennis at the British Junior Championships than at Wembley where the pro elite played...

    Jack Kramer complained that he had tried all to popularize pro tennis but failed widely.

    World Tennis seldom printed articles on the pros! Many scribblers considered the pro tours just as exhibitions...

    Gimeno and Buchholz were not old in 65/66, the former being at his peak.

    Open tournaments were not installed in 1968 because the pros would decline. They were founded because people wanted to see the best of the best at Wimbledon and the other GS events.

    After the 1967 pro event at Wimbledon David Gray compared the game of the amateurs at W. with margarine and the pros' game with butter...
     
  22. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    Actually anything in the top few is still excellent. In the history of tennis we've have had greats like Tilden, Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall, Kramer, Vines, Nadal, Lendl, Connors, Borg and Federer. So if Federer is in the top five or number six it is not a big deal considering the other players and how awesome they were. If someone put Laver (leaving Federer out of this) below Tilden, Rosewall, Kramer, Gonzalez and Vines, while I may disagree it wouldn't bother me at all.

    Nathaniel,

    I do agree that Laver's 200 tournament wins are staggering and should get the credit it deserves. I also think that the tennis media and the ATP should publicize some of the unofficial records of tennis because certainly tennis has existed way before 1973 which is often the starting point of where they keep records. Past achievements like Rosewall's 23 total majors or Gonzalez's many head to head tour wins should be celebrated. The old Pro Tour should be discussed regularly by the media. In the United States, for many decades Major League Baseball was the most popular sport. The great thing about MLB is that the true baseball fan reveres baseball history. I am friendly with a number of the great baseball sabermetricians who study and analyze baseball history. These people are constantly finding new information about baseball's past and correcting past errors in the information we have been given. Certainly to me it is laughable that the ATP counts tennis records from 1973 onward. To their credit they do call it ATP records and not tennis records. However I do think they should keep separate categories, that is call some tennis records and others ATP records.

    For example the ATP has Pancho Gonzalez winning "only" seven tournaments in his entire career forgetting little tournaments like his two US Championships. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Go/R/Richard-Pancho-A-Gonzales.aspx

    Even then they have it wrong because Gonzalez won eleven tournaments in the Open Era including some huge ones like the 1969 and 1970 Howard Hughes Open defeating players like Smith, Ashe, Emerson, Rosewall, Gimeno and Laver in winning those two tournaments. To put it in perspective, Gonzalez won as many tournaments in the Open Era (starting in 1968 when he would be 40) as Patrick Rafter in his entire career. Of course Rafter did win two US Opens in his career so the edge goes to Rafter over a 40 year old and older Gonzalez in record.

    There have been a lot of incredible records in tennis history. Here are just a few from Bud Collins' History of Tennis.

    Longest winning streak
    Men
    Tilden-98
    Budge-92
    Emerson-55
    Vilas-50
    Women
    Lenglen-182
    Wills-158
    Lenglen-116
    Marble(very underrated player by the way. Big serve and volleyer with a huge serve. Also perhaps the first and only tennis player/spy!)-111
    Navratilova-74

    Highest match winning percentage in a season
    Men
    Tilden-78-1
    Women
    Marble-45-0 in 1939 and 1940
    Wills and Lenglen were unbeaten also in some years but with fewer wins.
    Navratilova-86-1

    Of course some records in Bud's book are a little off because he mentions the great amount of Laver tournament wins in one part of the book and doesn't have it in the records toward the back.

    The point is that we should treasure the history and records of tennis. I find it fun to look at some of the great achievements of players in the past.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  23. MachiA.

    MachiA. Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Still first world, but moving south
    When you follow the concept of evolution, people should be smarter in 100 years.

    So they will play not on homogenized surfaces like today.:)

    Means: Fed will be no GOAT contender.


    KR
     
  24. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/are-people-getting-dumber-one-geneticist-thinks-so

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CavemenVsAstronautsDebate

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq2V0_20Mv8

    To be serious, that's off the topic. I'm discussing the celebration of the history of tennis.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  25. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    There's a guy called Sampras you forgot about....or maybe left out intentionally due to "low percentages"....
     
  26. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    My, aren't we a bit paranoid here? Amazing how you find slights that aren't there? :-?

    Yes I left out Borg also and I love Borg's play. I guess I hate Borg then.

    Genius, it was an example and I picked a few names to explain the example. Definition of example is to explain a point. I don't rank Vines in the top few but I used his name.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2014
  27. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Gray¡¡¡ good you brought him up.He and Collins ( and maybe Evans) are the three best ones of the " new " generation
     
  28. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    To me, the most dificult to rate of the historical past greats is Jack Kramer ( well also Vines but this is a lost cause).Sometimes, when his big influence sticks into my mind, I am tempted to rank him top 10 and maybe even top 5.But some other times, I have doubts whether he is even top 15.

    Kramer is like a two face coins.
     
  29. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    Kiki,

    Many people think Jack Kramer is the greatest ever. He was the only player ever to go unbeaten in tours. For level of play many think he had the highest average level. We cannot also rate on majors alone. Players like Hoad and Sedgman think he's the best ever. Gonzalez ranked Kramer second only to Hoad. Vic Braden ranked Kramer as the best he's seen.

    I think the best way to sum up Jack Kramer for you Kiki is that he was a better more consistent version of John Newcombe. Serves were about equal but Kramer probably had a better volley. Kramer also had one of the best forehands of all time with a very consistent backhand like Newcombe but probably superior to Newk's. Bobby Riggs' thought Kramer was the best ever also as did Don Budge.

    Kramer had no major stroke weaknesses although, like Newcombe he wasn't as fast as guys like Rosewall or Laver.
     
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    In my opinion Kramer never was an exceptional player.But he invented % tennis to do exceptionally well what made him a great champion and a man who could beat any truly great player any era: take advantage of his assets and max them.He may have been the very best at it and that is his real talent.
     
  31. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    You did mention Borg though, in fact you mentioned every Tier 1 great except Sampras.

    whatever.
     
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    Tell you what, instead of Sampras I'll use your name here, Phoenix1983 as a possible example in the future. For example Phoenix1983 won 14 majors in 52 attempts. Phoenix1983 lost to Federer at Wimbledon in 2001. Phoenix1983 defeated Goran at Wimbledon.

    Or maybe I may use the name Sampras when I have to which may be a good reason. For goodness sake, do you realize that I didn't even consider that I didn't use Sampras' name? I'm not going to use Sampras' name to make Phoenix1083 happy. I'll use it when appropiate. I didn't put Nadal and Djokovic's name in also so I suppose I hate them.

    Quit looking for these things. It's hard to find stuff that isn't there. But it is easy to assume things which I notice you do a lot.

    Genius, did you know that I wrote an article once proclaiming Sampras as by far the greatest server of the 1990's? Why did I do it? Because he was and he's the player of the 1990's. That's your present for today. Praise for Sampras.

    Here's a fact, I like Sampras and his game. I enjoy his movement and his transition game. I enjoy his overall game. But as I wrote before just before I like him doesn't stop me from writing what I believe to be the truth about him. Do you get that?

    Here's an opinion. I don't think Sampras is as good a returner as Agassi. By your logic I can't stand him because I wrote something you may think is negative about him. Except the facts all show it.

    Here's another opinion. Sampras doesn't have to break as much as Agassi or just about anyone because his serve and overall game allows him to win a set with one break. That's a part of his greatness.

    Here's another opinion. I don't think Sampras volleys quite as well as Edberg did in his prime. By some of your logic I insulted Sampras in your opinion. Yes I know it may not be your opinion but again it's an example. My thought is that it's a compliment that I rank Sampras' volley somewhat close to Edberg. For example I would never write Roddick doesn't volley quite as well as Edberg. I would probably write that it's laughable to compare Roddick's volley with Edberg's.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  33. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    They'll find MH370 before I understand what you're prattling on about.
     
  34. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, Thanks a lot for presenting these all-time records.

    Yes, I regret that Bud has not given the list of the most successful tournament winners. I have asked him to do several times because the ATP list with Connors first at 109 (now 107!?) tourneys won is little meaningful and not objective. I suggested to confront two list on the same page.

    Bud said that he will try to include the true list in the next edition of his encyclopedia. Let's be hopeful...
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    MachiA, In 100 years people will still consider Roger as a great player but not as superhuman as many fans nowadays believe.
     
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, I never have seen pc1 prattling in our forums.
     
  38. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, Yes, Phoenix has an "idee fixe" about Rosewall's "weak" performance at Wimbledon. He never will realize that Muscles did very well at W. in reaching four classic finals even though he could not participate in not less than 13 years where he would have been a Co.-favourite, and arguably the top favourite in 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1972 (in the last year seeded 1st).

    By the way, Phoenix has an excellent English but....;-)
     
  39. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    I think he'll do it. Just remind him just in case.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014
  40. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Location:
    Melbourne
    What people fail to realise is that those who judge the GOAT are people living today, that includes young and old. Overall, everything is skewed and biased towards the current generation. The same way people sort of gloss over Tilden today, people will gloss over Federer and Nadal in a hundred years from now. In a hundred years time, things will be different, I don't know how, but they will be, because things always change. Heck, I saw on another thread last night, some idiot said he couldn't understand what the concept of the DC is all about, the DC, an ITF event fought for by countries since the year 1900 and yet this clown didn't understand it, nor could he appreciate its history or importance....welcome to tennis in 2014...that's just the way it is these days. Like I said, things change. The juvenile doesn't understand DC because he has been brought up in an era of every man for himself, GOAT obsession, spin friendly racquets which make players better than what they are and homogenised courts which help towards career slams and maybe in the not too distant future, a grand slam.

    Go out and find 1,000 babies that were born yesterday. Chances are, only a couple of them will be around in 100 years time to say who the GOAT of the past 150 years has been, and even then, chances are he or she will be senile so no teeny bobber will take him or her seriously, no different to a Nadal teeny bopper fan today listening to what an old man has to say about Laver.

    I don't think any of you appreciate just how far into the future 100 years is. And yet most of you are still thinking Federer or Nadal or even Borg will be GOAT in 100 years. Get your hand off it. Just like you have a certain amount of flogs on here who say "oh look at the way Laver players, it looks slow motion and he would get smashed by a top player today", the same will be said about Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg et al in 2114, that's if there's anyone around in 2114 who even cares to mention Federer/Nadal/Sampras/Borg et al. They will be forgotten in 100 years time because as the majority of users on this site have shows, it's all about the here and now.

    This is why the GOAT is just a concept and does not exist.
     
  41. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,094
    When I reflect on who will be a goat candidate, I don't have in mind "a goat candidate according to the common teeny bobber". There will certainly be some people interested in knowledge of past tennis to discuss great of the past exactly as we do know.

    I have little doubt that Hannibal, Julius Cesar, Alexander and any other former great general would be smoked by the automatic rifles of the dumbest current general. Yet these men are still discussed as greatest general of all time candidates.
     
  42. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,658
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I guess I should be careful where I put my hand. :(
     
  43. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    Is it possible to put your elbows on it? :)
     
  44. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,347
    Wow, that's a long post!! That's worthy of Carlo.

    Blocker, you're missing the point of this thread. Throughout the history of modern sports people have argued in barrooms about who the greatest of all time is. It's fun to discuss and many people are very emotional about it. However it is often for fun!! So if we discussed the greatest of all time it's fun to discuss it if it comes with reasonable attitudes and reasonable information. Lord knows I have often disagreed with the OP but I think this is a good thread that he or she started.

    As far as whether there is a greatest of all time I think by definition as long as the equipment is relatively the same that for level of play there is a greatest time in virtually any sport. For people who use wood racquets it's reasonable to argue is the greatest of all time because the equipment is the same.

    For those using fairly modern equipment or for those who transitioned from wood rackets to current racquets it may be a little harder to discuss. In that case people may discuss level of play or simply various information which they may think is useful in discussing the greatest ever.

    So people can argue Sampras is the greatest. Some may argue Federer is the greatest. Some may argue that Nadal is the greatest ever. All have some arguments in their favor and against them. But it is for fun and I think by definition there has to be a greatest. But the fun is trying to figure out who it may be or may not be. So honestly doesn't really matter if you believe there is no GOAT. The fun is in the discussion. :)

    For example Tilden, a century later is still discussed as perhaps the greatest of all time. Tilden has already proven his record was worthy enough to be discussed seriously as a GOAT contender years later.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2014
  45. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Phoenix maybe correct in the need to enhance Sampras because, of the clear GOAT candidates he seems to be the one less loved
    Unfair
    Young poster's hate him while worshipping Nadal and Fed while olders just feel a comprehensive emotional distance
    We respect and acknowledge him but do not love him like we do with Borg,Laver,Connors or Muscles
    Yes Pete falls in no man lands
    And he is a Goatie
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, You found the right words about this matter.

    "There has to be a greatest". Yes, or TWO greatest... who lived in the same country and played at the same time and were of about the same height...;-)
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2014
  47. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    Is Federer moving to Mallorca? :)
     
  48. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    or nadal moving to Basel ? :)
     
  49. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Lets hope Jan Kodes has the credit he deserves in
    next 100 yrs
     
  50. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ARFED, I don't know. I only know that Federer if moving to Argentina would be the GOAT of your country...
     

Share This Page