WHo's goat between Federer Laver Gonzalez etc(excluding Sampras)

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by TheNatural, May 10, 2009.

?

who do you consider the goat(Sampras excluded)

  1. Bill Tilden

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Pancho Gonzalez

    8.7%
  3. Ken Rosewall

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Rod Laver

    23.9%
  5. Bjorn Borg

    8.7%
  6. Roger Federer

    53.3%
  7. other

    5.4%
  1. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    Vote on the poll.

    If we exclude Sampras from the vote and pretend he never existed who would you vote as the goat?


    Bill Tilden
    Pancho Gonzalez
    Rod Laver
    Ken Rosewall
    Bjorn Borg
    Roger Federer
    other
     
    #1
  2. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    I'd say Pancho edging out Laver.
     
    #2
  3. thalivest

    thalivest Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,486
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Laver is the GOAT with everyone on the list including Sampras, so of course Laver.
     
    #3
  4. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    Don't forget to vote then

     
    #4
  5. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    From what I have read and seen what people said about Pancho.. He would be my vote. No one wanted to deal with pancho.


    Most achieved on this list? Laver
    Greatest? Pancho
     
    #5
  6. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    CHEERS. This poll is to see how the remaining 57% of the vote is distributed. Since in the other poll Sampras won 43% of the vote and the rest as a group won 57% of the vote.:twisted:

     
    #6
  7. Leublu tennis

    Leublu tennis Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    6,429
    Location:
    Moldova
    For me its a toss between Tilden and Laver. Tilden just seems so long ago that Laver is probably a better choice. Sampras? No. Federer? No. Nadal? What can I say?
     
    #7
  8. samster

    samster Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,017
    This is all subjective...

    Who is your hero?
     
    #8
  9. gj011

    gj011 Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,548
    Location:
    Back from prison
    Why is Sampras excluded.
    Laver is the goat. Does not matter if you include or exclude Sampras.
     
    #9
  10. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Laver 10 char.
     
    #10
  11. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    Nice to people are still jocking Laver.
     
    #11
  12. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Ahh another Laver jocksniffing lovefest. Are u all australian or what? LOL.


    Im sure if Nadal grabs the calendar this year, People will already call him the GOAT at 22. :( It appears that the only way to be GOAT is to score a calendar slam. Even if the slams are only played on two surface back in Laver's day, or today where Grass is a damn imposter
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
    #12
  13. Daized

    Daized Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2008
    Messages:
    335
    What I find stupid is that people are comparing eras that are far apart, and that people are comparing wood racquets to graphite.

    I don't think Laver in today's era would fair as well as he did back when he was playing.

    And I don't think someone like Nadal would fair as well in the wooden racquet era.

    Stop comparing eras that are almost like different sports.

    At the moment, Sampras is the GOAT of modern day tennis. Second is Federer. And one day in the future it may be Nadal.
     
    #13
  14. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Pancho is arguebly the GOAT and I have him very close with Laver, I give Laver the edge as my personal opinion is Laver had a more complete game than Pancho as he did not struggle on the slower surfaces.

    To GameSampras no nadal will not be GOAT if he wins a calendar year slam. Nadal will still have to do more.
     
    #14
  15. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    also note if you two actually voted Pancho...he would have 3 votes.
     
    #15
  16. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    Understand.....

    Is Laver great?? Hell yeah!!!!!!
    is he one of the greatest??? Hell yeah!!!!!!
    Is he the GOAT??? Maybe.
    Is the unquestionably the GOAT the way many have him around here?? Please... can we be serious for minute???

    I don't bother to vote in any of these polls, I don't see the point.
     
    #16
  17. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Understood it is all opinion.

    okay to each his own.
     
    #17
  18. rubberduckies

    rubberduckies Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,254
    When somebody who is "completely self-taught" can be the top player in the world for the better part of a decade, that speaks more to the weakness of the tour than anything else.
     
    #18
  19. Jchurch

    Jchurch Guest

    For the most part, Michael Jordan was self taught and look what he achieved.
     
    #19
  20. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689
    Numbers wise and achievements wise is MJ the GOAT? You can argue he isnt though. Kareem achieved more, Wilt achieved more individually. Russell led his team to more championships etc. Yet MJ is still highly regarded as the GOAT
     
    #20
  21. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916

    Wilt Chamberlain played in an era where defense didn't existed. Come on, anyone who even knows anything remotely about basketball knows this.


    MJ is not the GOAT of basketball though. His team was stacked from top to bottom in the years he won his championships. The Bulls' bench was better than most teams starting line-ups.
     
    #21
  22. GameSampras

    GameSampras Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    4,689


    I agree. Wilt played against a bunch of white midgets mostly and also in an era with no 3 second in the lane rule, But if we got by "just the numbers" Wilts resume looks better than MJ's. Thats why Numbers arent the be all end all in sports.
     
    #22
  23. asafi2

    asafi2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    368
    Basketball, unlike baseball, is not a sport where accumulated stats are as important as per game or per minute efficiency. Michael, while playing in the most difficult defensive era (they had to invent the flagrant foul because of what the Pistons were doing to him), had best PER ratings of any guard (it's not even close), and the highest points per game, while shooting an astounding 50% from the floor (would've been higher had he not come back with the wizards) when most guards are lucky to shoot that for an entire season.

    And I'm not sure you grasp the idea of 3 second in the lane. The 3 second rule makes it so much easier to score. Wilt had to contend with guys hacking him, and crowding around him and just waiting under the basket for him because there was no 3 second rule. Nowadays, without handchecking or 3 seconds, any player with any remote speed can just drive to the hoop and dunk it. Not only did MJ have to deal with a defender pushing him around with both hands like an offensive lineman (which forced him to utilize the fadeaway), but there were 2 or 3 bigs waiting for him under the basket bc there was no 3 second rule. And what did MJ do? Dunk on them.

    All realistic fans will ask the question... "who has EARNED the title of 'greatest of all time'"??
    (All statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS)
    ****************************** *****
    NBA ALL-TIME LEADERS:
    1st Place: MJ, 149 total points
    2nd Place: Wilt, 124 total points
    3rd Place: Bill, 118 total points
    4th Place: Jabbar, 114 total points
    5th Place: Magic, 102 total points
    (Active Players):
    1st Place: Shaq, 85 total points
    2nd Place: Tim, 71 total points
    3rd Place: KB, 45 total points
     
    #23
  24. asafi2

    asafi2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    368
    I beg to differ. MJ is the only player in the last 30 years to win an NBA championship without a dominant big man. Bet ya didnt know that one did you...

    Rick Reilly argued that the 1998 Chicago Bulls had the worst players from the positions 2-10 (Scottie was injured all year because of his ailing back) to ever win a championship. After MJ retired in 1993, the Bulls had a decent year, then were barely .500 the year after. Pippen got arrested and the team was in shambles. Now if they alone were as good as you say, then they should still have been a threat in the East.
     
    #24
  25. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916

    So Dennis Rodman, the rebound machine doesn't count? You do realize that in 95 that the Bulls had the most ridiculous bench that would have outplayed most starting line ups right? What planet are you on again? Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Buechler, and Randy Brown? Those guys alone could have won most games for the Bulls.


    MJ didn't need a dominant big man because he had a dominant team, period. The 95 team was utterly stacked from bottom to top.



    95-98 MJ had a rediculous team, period.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2009
    #25
  26. The_Steak

    The_Steak Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    389
    Rofl you guys are talking about basketball in a tennis forum.

    Sampras the greatest because he has the most slams.
     
    #26
  27. asafi2

    asafi2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    368
    Dennis Rodman, standing at an astounding 6 foot 8, was not a big man, nor did he play like a big man. Aside from rebounding, he was not a shot blocker, or lane clogger ala Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, etc. He rebounded that is it. No other team could win an NBA championship without a dominant big man (one who can block, stop penetration, and score, as well grab rebounds). Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Buechler, and Randy Brown? Ha. I'm from Chicago and watched them every night. What made the team great was both Pippen and MJ in their mental primes, and with the addition of Rodman it made them unreal. The players you just mentioned could've been replaced with any random NBA players and the results would've been the same. Kerr is a great spot up shooter. But so are 100 other short white guys in the NBA. Kukoc never realized his potential (he had a similar skill set as Lamar Odom). Bill Wennington? Really? The rest arent even worthy of a mention.


    Look at their stat lines and it'll show you how much they contributed.
     
    #27
  28. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    I know I am from the UK, but this sentence doesn't seem to make any sense at all, what does it mean?
     
    #28
  29. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Absolutely what I think as well, LAVER is the GOAT:)
     
    #29
  30. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    And what does basketball have to do with this thread?
     
    #30
  31. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    #31
  32. egn

    egn Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,973
    Where did the random increase in Fed votes come from?
     
    #32
  33. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    It's not shocking that Federer is winning as there are loads of Federer fans on these boards:)

    However, it is really disappointing that they seem to be behaving like Sampras fans and just voting in poll without arguing their case:(

    They would lose the argument, but it is a bit rubbish they are not even trying!!!

    LAVER is the GOAT, no doubt about it at all:)
     
    #33
  34. theduh

    theduh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    768
    Location:
    Middle earth

    Shocking to start this thread knowing that there is no clear cut standard to say who's GOAT or not. Remember that science (technology, regimen, training, etc) is totally different from what the pro tennis players have now and before. So to choose who's GOAT from the greats of yesterday and today is completely absurd as much as comparing one era to another.

    For me to know who's really GOAT is to get all the greats, put them on a single tournament, use the same technology, all in their primes, and on a surface which every one is comfortable. Who wins? that is the GOAT.
     
    #34
  35. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    But that doesn't explain how people can vote Federer ahead of Laver despite Laver being way ahead on all of the main meterics, especially when Federer is half way through his career. Laver has about 150 more singles titles, the equivalency of 20 something slams, 5 Davis cups,world best for more years etc etc. So there should be little doubt that Laver is ahead of Federer.


     
    Last edited: May 11, 2009
    #35
  36. theduh

    theduh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    768
    Location:
    Middle earth
    Agree, I am a Federer fan and didn't vote for him because I don't believe that there's supposedly a GOAT. I guess people here didn't saw Laver played at all (like me) and can't just based everything on stats. I think they want to see Laver play and then compare to Fed who's game was really exceptional and revolutionized the game during his prime (not saying that Agassi, Sampras plus a whole bunch of greats didn't revolutionized tennis) it's just that when you say tennis TODAY there's only two people that come to mind Fed and Nadal and this is in no particular order.

    I bet if you'd do another survey and added Nadal you'll get a different result.
     
    #36
  37. luckyboy1300

    luckyboy1300 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,796
    this doesn't reflect that at all. if that's your intention then the ones who voted yes to sampras as goat are not allowed to place their votes here; only the ones that said no.
     
    #37
  38. prosealster

    prosealster Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    963
    i wouldnt vote for pete even if he was on the list
     
    #38
  39. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    It's pointless to compare players from completely different era. Laver was playing with WOOD! I'm sure Nadal wouldn't do so well with a wooden racquet. In contrast, Laver wouldn't do so well if he was given Nadal's racquet either. Their styles suit different condition, hence it is impossible to compare eras that are too far apart. In my opinion, we should separate open era into two eras, wooden era and graphite era. Laver is the GOAT of wooden era and Sampras is the GOAT of graphite era. Things can change. Only time will tell.
     
    #39
  40. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    Sampras is the best ever player in Graphite era on fast grass. Laver is the GOAT:)
     
    #40
  41. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294

    I don't think Borg and Federer are in the same league as Laver, Gonzalez, and Tiden. AFAIK, Laver and Gonzalez won roughly 20 majors(slams and pro slam equivalents) and stayed at #1 for 7-8 years.

    Borg had 4-5 years of brilliance. Federer had 4-5 years of brilliance so far. Amazing performances but they have not tested by TIME and thus nowhere near in the same league, IMHO.

    At least not yet for Federer. Federer's true legacy will be defined by years 2008 and after. He should come back strong and show he can beat younger generation, IMHO. Top 5 GOAT's dominated younger generations for a decade or so.
     
    #41
  42. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903
    You can't look at it like that. Would they be doing that in this climate (open era)??? What would Borg, Sampras and Federer have done in those days.

    3 slam a year on grass.... Pete is going to town!!! Laver, take away the 6 slams he won 1960-62 as Hoad and Rosewall turned pro and weren't allowed to compete. How many does he win 1963-67 to add to his 5 in the open era?? Who knows. There are too many variables. Let anyone of Pancho, Laver, Borg, Sampras or Federer play in Tilden's shoes and how would they do???

    There are so many variables that get overlooked when looking at it that way.
     
    #42
  43. 380pistol

    380pistol Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,903

    Yes the game has Changed, but 50 and 20, is 50 and 20. I mean Oscar Robertson avg'd 30 pts, 10 rebs, and 10 ast over a a periond of FIVE YEARS!!!!!!!! And this with no shot clock!!!!!!!
    Dog, get it together.

    Are you on crack??? Who the hell did Jordan have on his team besides Pippen?? Of the 6 championships teams, Pippen is the only one sniffing the hall of fame, the rest will get when they by a day pass!!!!!!!!!

    Bech??? Who the hell was on his bench????
    Look at Russell??? Havlicek. Cousy. Lakers...from West, Baylor, Kareem, Magic (who had Kareem), Worthy, Byron Scott, Michael Cooper (Def. POY). Bird had McHale, Parish, Danny Ainge, Walton, Dennis Johnson, and you wanna tell me MJ's bench was better than that???

    Tell me what call stacked. 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998.... let's go!!!!!
     
    #43
  44. fastdunn

    fastdunn Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,294
    Yes, You are right. There are too many variables. So it all comes down to two of the most objective metrics:

    1. number of majors (slams and pro slam equivalents)
    2. number of years at the top.
     
    #44
  45. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,105
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    Federer beating Laver in the polls--as he should. Laver=vastly over-rated.
     
    #45
  46. jimbo333

    jimbo333 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    4,003
    Location:
    Windsor, England
    LAVER is the GOAT, you need to stick to the music mate (although MOZART is the GOAT):)
     
    #46
  47. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,879
    With the Sampras vote included the final poll results are:

    Sampras 43%
    Federer: 25.65%
    Laver 14.25%
    Borg 7.125%
    Gonzalez 7.125%
    other 2.85%
     
    #47
  48. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    Why can't we look at it this way? Whoever dominates the most and the longest is the most dominant player to play the game, the one who came closest to being untouchable - that is, the greatest (in my opinion). Unfortunately, no one has really separated himself from the pack in this regard.

    Actually, we do know. There were three pro "majors" to sort of mirror the amateur ones: the Wembley Pro, the French Pro, and the U.S. Pro. Laver won the Wembley Pro four times, the French Pro once, and the U.S. Pro 3 times. He also won the Wimbledon Pro in the only year in which it was held (1967). That makes 9 slams (and in most of his pro years there were only three slams as opposed to four). Added to his 5 open era slams we get 14. 20 if we also include his amateur slams (although you make a good point that those aren't quite as impressive as his pro and open slams).


    We can't know how others would perform in others' shoes. It's pointless to speculate. That's why I try to look only at numbers. Of course, other factors must be taken into account (certain players missing a tournament - Pete in the 1999 U.S. Open, for example, or Borg missing the 1977 French). But in general, I try to use as little subjectivity as possible.
     
    #48
  49. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    Also, three of the amateur slams were played on grass, but only the U.S. Pro was played on grass. Wembley, I believe, was played on an indoor wood surface and the French was played mostly on clay but then on indoor wood from 1963 to 1967. And if Sampras had played before the open era, he would probably have gone pro after winning a handful of amateur slams, so it's not as if he'd play 20 years in the 3/4 grass environment.
     
    #49
  50. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,744
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    The numbers would seem to put Fed in fifth or sixth place--

    Combining Grand Slam titles with Pro majors, Rosewall won 23 "major" titles in his career, Laver won 19, Federer has captured 15, and Sampras and Gonzalez both won 14.

    Considering all semifinal, final, and championship results in majors, we find Rosewall at unbelievable 52 (total semifinal, final and championship results in majors), followed by Tilden (35), Laver (32), Connors (31), Gonzalez (29), and Federer (22).

    Laver won at least 199 tournaments, followed by Tilden (161), Jaroslav Drobny and Connors (each 148 ), Lendl (144), Rosewall (136), Roy Emerson (114), Tony Wilding (112), Borg (100), McEnroe (99), and Federer or Sampras (64).

    Gonzalez seems to be the best at World No. 1 being that for at least 6 years, tied with Sampras. Federer owned the year-end top spot for 4 years (2004-2007). But if we include those years when a player has reached a co-No.1 position, we get a significantly different picture: Gonzalez and Rosewall, each 9 years on the top, Laver at 8 years, followed by Budge, Tilden, Vines, and Kramer each 7 years.

    In terms of years spent in the top-10 in the world, remember that computer rankings were not used in the pre-Open Era. Tilden and Rosewall lead with 23 years in the top-10, Gonzalez spent 22 years (if we project 1962 and 1963 when Pancho did not play but probably would have been among top ten, even top three), Budge and Segura, each 19 years.

    Rosewall, Gonzalez and Tilden are the outstanding players when it comes to their longevity. All three men were formidable players into their 40s. Rosewall won majors in a remarkable range that spanned from 1953-1972.

    Concerning the longest streak of winning majors, this list is headed by Rosewall (9), Tilden (8 ) and Budge (6). Concerning a streak of top placings in majors, two players are outstanding: Rosewall (34) and Federer (21). It's fair to mention that in open era such streaks were more difficult to achieve than in Rosewall's time (1954-1968 ). Rod Laver has still the record regarding big finals reached in a row 1964 to 1968: 14.

    Regarding a best 5-year span or career high, the most titles in a five-year period were won by Laver (82). The best percentage of titles in a five-year belongs to Tilden (approximately .815). The most majors won during a five-year period were won by Federer (12). The best percentage of majors in five-year period keep Tilden and Vines at the top (both .1000).

    Finally, if one cares to consider doubles play (Federer is rightly proud of his Olympic gold medal in doubles), in the pre-Open Era virtually all players played in the doubles competition (often even the mixed doubles), while today most top players often refuse to play doubles. The players with the most major doubles titles (excluding mixed doubles) are: Rosewall (23), Hoad (21), Newcombe (17) and Emerson (16). Bob Hewitt has won 163 doubles titles which is all-time record.
     
    #50

Share This Page