Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   GOAT= Slams Total ONLY? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=460775)

hoodjem 04-15-2013 07:35 AM

GOAT= Slams Total ONLY?
 
Here's a post that, frankly, amazed me.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ehh (Post 7340652)
Who cares if he wins the CYSG?

Slam total is everything. I have no idea why people think the GOAT debate is so complex, because we only need to look at that one stat: slam total.

Djokovic wins CYSG and retires with 9 slams, Nadal retires with 11 slams, Nadal is still superior to Djokovic.

Djokovic retires with 12 slams, Nadal retires with 11 slams, Djokovic is superior to Nadal.

Djokovic retires with 18 slams, Federer retires with 17, Djokovic is superior to Federer.

Get it?

And again.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ehh (Post 7342918)
Nope, it is you that is making it too complicated. Liberate yourself.

Only one criteria matters: slam total.

I don't care if player A wins 5 calendar slams in a row to get 20 slams, if player B wins 2 slams a year for 11 years and gets 22 slams, player B is greater.

Also, weeks at number 1 and Masters don't matter - they would only matter if you're comparing 2 players with an equal number of slams. In that case, head to head between the 2 could also figure.

The second post convinced me that the author was serious (and not being facetious). It was almost as if the author of these posts was saying the old Marx Brothers line: "Don't confuse the issue with facts."

I have long thought that boiling tennis history down to one single statistic would be overly simplistic, because tennis history is way too complicated for that. One good reason is the Pro-AM split which prevented the world's best players form even entering the slam tournaments.

Another reason would be that before 1970 or so no one was really counting up totals, particularly the players. In this regard there is that famous statement by Laver, that once he asked Emerson (his oft doubles partner) if he knew how many "majors" he had won, and Emmo said he had no idea.

I am not suggesting that slams are unimportant or don't matter. I am merely saying that the total of these is not the single and sole statistic that counts. Am I wrong here?

Do you think figuring out the best in the history of the game is about more than the slams count total?
If so, please post why.

forzamilan90 04-15-2013 07:44 AM

It should be noted this guy is a troll and possibly an alternate account of *** or passive_aggressive so whatever he says, take it with a grain of troll salt.

hoodjem 04-15-2013 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzamilan90 (Post 7344695)
It should be noted this guy is a troll and possibly an alternate account of *** or passive_aggressive so whatever he says, take it with a grain of troll salt.

I hope so, and I shall.

Do you think this view is representative or symptomatic of a larger group?

forzamilan90 04-15-2013 07:50 AM

In regards to the question at hand, at least in modern times, last 30 years or so I can understand the notion that slam counts are the ultimate measuring stick. The tour is way more uniform than back in the old days, players play less tournaments and tend to focus on prestige (the stars that is). You ain't gonna have no Connors or Laver type numbers of total titles to go by, that was a past precedent that is not comparable to today. At the end if the day people can believe and choose what they want ad GOAT criteria (some place heavy emphasis on David cup), others on the Calendar Grand Slam, others on longevity, others on domination, others on slam performance, etc.

In recent times however, with well established tour slam count is the biggie for sure. Largest and most prestigious tournaments and no amateur/pro issues to deal with like in the older days.

forzamilan90 04-15-2013 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 7344708)
I hope so, and I shall.

Do you think this view is representative or symptomatic of a larger group?

I think so..with Sampras and Federer especially, not to mention mow you have Nadal and even Djokovic on the slam count chase, setting precedents the notion of ultimate importance of slams will find more and more supporters

hoodjem 04-15-2013 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzamilan90 (Post 7344710)
. . . (some place heavy emphasis on Davis Cup), others on the Calendar Grand Slam, others on longevity, others on domination, others on slam performance, etc.

In recent times however, with well established tour slam count is the biggie for sure. Largest and most prestigious tournaments and no amateur/pro issues to deal with like in the older days.

I would offer that all of these factors matter--to some extent.

NatF 04-15-2013 09:15 AM

Slams are perhaps the best indicator because they either show dominance or longevity. Ideally the GOAT would have both.

Years at #1 are important. If you're a player who is very good at winning a specific GS tournament but you don't win everywhere else and generally the #2 or #3 guy over your career then you can't be the GOAT either IMO. The GOAT needs to be the greatest of his era which means he needs to spend most of his prime at #1.

I'd say tournament wins and win percentage would come under the weeks at #1 naturally.

I think peak level of play is important as well, although this is hard to measure.

robow7 04-15-2013 11:33 AM

If total slams is your only criteria, then you've ruled out all that played the game before 1985 or so because it wasn't that big of deal and many skipped majors regularly for better money and other various reasons.

hoodjem 04-15-2013 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forzamilan90 (Post 7344710)
In regards to the question at hand, at least in modern times, last 30 years or so I can understand the notion that slam counts are the ultimate measuring stick.

I can accept that it may be the ultimate measure, but not the sole measure.

I appreciate your contemporary perspective.

forzamilan90 04-15-2013 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoodjem (Post 7345126)
I can accept that it may be the ultimate measure, but not the sole measure.

I appreciate your contemporary perspective.

yep, that's my contribution to this side of the forum :)

ARFED 04-15-2013 12:16 PM

My scale would be :

1-Number of majors
2-Variety of majors, achieving the career GS so to speak, having at least 2 of every major would be the most amazing feat imo of modern era players
3- CYGS
4-Number of weeks at No1 (i don`t give any importance to year end No1)
5-Consecutive weeks at No1
5-Other important trophies won (WTF, OG, Masters 1000)
6-Number of weeks at top 10
7-Total number of tournaments wins
8-Davis Cup record in world group matches

This standard imo would only be reasonable to use with players of the last 30 years. There are other things wich i don`t value high such as the hth, not because i`m a Fed fan :twisted: but because you play against the field, not a singular player, in the old pro circuit with the long hth tours was more relevant. I prefer to rank players according to their achievements alone and not level of play because that can be messy

To summarize, i think that x player can be the GOAT (at least open era GOAT), without having the biggest number of majors but fullfilling the other areas.

ollinger 04-15-2013 01:21 PM

Slam total may be the only valid indicator, since the tour is so diluted now because 1) top players skip so many smaller events, and 2) in a given week there can be events going on in several cities. So the slams more than ever are the only real test of all the best players in one place at one time.

DolgoSantoro 04-15-2013 01:42 PM

No, quite obviously. There are countless factors that one must look at to determine a potential GOAT. Majors, domination, strength of competition, etc. I believe Federer is the greatest ever, but trying to simplify the argument to the extent of the quoted posts in the OP is neglecting so much of the complexity of the issue. There's a GOAT Debate for a reason, after all.

フェデラー 04-15-2013 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARFED (Post 7345202)
My scale would be :

1-Number of majors
2-Variety of majors, achieving the career GS so to speak, having at least 2 of every major would be the most amazing feat imo of modern era players
3- CYGS
4-Number of weeks at No1 (i don`t give any importance to year end No1)
5-Consecutive weeks at No1
5-Other important trophies won (WTF, OG, Masters 1000)
6-Number of weeks at top 10
7-Total number of tournaments wins
8-Davis Cup record in world group matches

This standard imo would only be reasonable to use with players of the last 30 years. There are other things wich i don`t value high such as the hth, not because i`m a Fed fan :twisted: but because you play against the field, not a singular player, in the old pro circuit with the long hth tours was more relevant. I prefer to rank players according to their achievements alone and not level of play because that can be messy

To summarize, i think that x player can be the GOAT (at least open era GOAT), without having the biggest number of majors but fullfilling the other areas.

My problem with the OG is that it has only been around since 1988 when tennis was reinstated as a sport. Multiple generations of amazing tennis players never even had the chance to compete for it, thus I see it as unfair to use as GOAT criteria. Otherwise you could say Nadal > Laver because he has a gold medal and Laver does not. The WTF has been around for longer, and I would say more goat contenders have a WTF/WCT etc rather than an OG, however like I said before, the WTF hasn't been around for that long either. People keep spouting this nonsense that since Rafa said the OG was the most important thing he won, therefore it is the most important tournament to win in tennis. What people fail to realize is that it is important because he won it for Spain. It has little relevance to tennis as a whole IMO. As for Davis Cup, that is more dependent upon the strength of that nation at that specific time. Obviously during the 90s when the USA Sampras, Agassi, Courier, et al. it was easier for them to win titles, just as for Spain today they have Rafa, Ferrer, Almagro, etc. You can't really blame countries for not having a depth of talent at any given time.

BTURNER 04-15-2013 03:46 PM

Majors are major, but other stuff matters. Streaks are not super impressive. I want to see thier entire career, not just their peak years. I want to see them succeed in a variety of venues, surfaces and circumstances. I want to see them win against all styles, in all weather, and consistently for more than a decade. I want to see them grow over time, work on their weaknesses, build more complete games and tactics. I don't want to see them dodge surfaces or opponents or tank matches. GOAT candidates don't tank for 'strategic' or personal reasons.

90's Clay 04-15-2013 03:56 PM

1. The importance of Majors have changed over the last half century
2. The Australian Open had almost NO importance up until like 15-20 years ago and most top guys wouldn't even play it
3. Most GOAT candidates didn't have the luxury of having that many cracks at slams like guys have had over the last 40 years.


I don't know how Slams can be the only criteria for GOAT-ness when factoring all these things

timnz 04-15-2013 04:12 PM

WFT is an established event
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by フェデラー (Post 7345393)
My problem with the OG is that it has only been around since 1988 when tennis was reinstated as a sport. Multiple generations of amazing tennis players never even had the chance to compete for it, thus I see it as unfair to use as GOAT criteria. Otherwise you could say Nadal > Laver because he has a gold medal and Laver does not. The WTF has been around for longer, and I would say more goat contenders have a WTF/WCT etc rather than an OG, however like I said before, the WTF hasn't been around for that long either. People keep spouting this nonsense that since Rafa said the OG was the most important thing he won, therefore it is the most important tournament to win in tennis. What people fail to realize is that it is important because he won it for Spain. It has little relevance to tennis as a whole IMO. As for Davis Cup, that is more dependent upon the strength of that nation at that specific time. Obviously during the 90s when the USA Sampras, Agassi, Courier, et al. it was easier for them to win titles, just as for Spain today they have Rafa, Ferrer, Almagro, etc. You can't really blame countries for not having a depth of talent at any given time.

The WTF has been around for 43 years. That's plenty long enough time to be an established event. It does reflect on a players career strongly how well they do there. (Not as much as the Slams but only a little below them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_World_Tour_Finals

I agree that Slam count is the major criteria.....but I would tweek that to say rather than 'Slam' - 'Major'. Because every Slam is a major but not every Major is a Slam. examples WCT finals in the 1970's and early 80's, World Hard court championship, World Pro championship etc.

I think that weeks at number 1 should be there - but a lesser factor. I do like the variety of major titles particularly surfaces (including indoor - hence the inclusion of WCT finals, World Tour finals etc).

ARFED 04-15-2013 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by フェデラー (Post 7345393)
My problem with the OG is that it has only been around since 1988 when tennis was reinstated as a sport. Multiple generations of amazing tennis players never even had the chance to compete for it, thus I see it as unfair to use as GOAT criteria. Otherwise you cou,ld say Nadal > Laver because he has a gold medal and Laver does not. The WTF has been around for longer, and I would say more goat contenders have a WTF/WCT etc rather than an OG, however like I said before, the WTF hasn't been around for that long either. People keep spouting this nonsense that since Rafa said the OG was the most important thing he won, therefore it is the most important tournament to win in tennis. What people fail to realize is that it is important because he won it for Spain. It has little relevance to tennis as a whole IMO. As for Davis Cup, that is more dependent upon the strength of that nation at that specific time. Obviously during the 90s when the USA Sampras, Agassi, Courier, et al. it was easier for them to win titles, just as for Spain today they have Rafa, Ferrer, Almagro, etc. You can't really blame countries for not having a depth of talent at any given time.


I see your point and i embrace it as well, that is why i stated that OG is only important to talk about players from the middle 80`s and thereafter.

When i refer to Davis Cup i talk about a singles record, that has nothing to do with the strenght of a team, i am not talking about how much titles or ties a player has won. It has decreased in importance in the last years, but it remains as important measure of the capacity of certain player to deal with a different kind of pressure that the one he usually has to face in the tour, often the Davis Cup has proven to be much more difficult to deal with

フェデラー 04-15-2013 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARFED (Post 7345645)
I see your point and i embrace it as well, that is why i stated that OG is only important to talk about players from the middle 80`s and thereafter.

When i refer to Davis Cup i talk about a singles record, that has nothing to do with the strenght of a team, i am not talking about how much titles or ties a player has won. It has decreased in importance in the last years, but it remains as important measure of the capacity of certain player to deal with a different kind of pressure that the one he usually has to face in the tour, often the Davis Cup has proven to be much more difficult to deal with

Even then, didn't sampras only play in 92 and skip 96 altogether? Jesus Marc Rosset won the 92 gold for christ's sake. Regardless, the OG has nothing to do with tennis. Rafa could have won the gold in power walking and he would have said the same thing.

Alright, I like that a lot more. Most people would rather just simply keep it as number of davis cup titles. It's too bad Roger doesn't play it more often except to make sure that Switzerland stays in the world group, but that's his choice.

Goosehead 04-15-2013 05:09 PM

in the early 1980s exhibition tourneys like 'The Suntory Cup' was of more importance (big pay cheque) than the Australian open.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse