Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Does Lendl have any records that are his own now though. He lost his slam finals record to Federer. Connors holds the slam semifinals and most tournament wins record over him. Federer has had both a 3 year streak a 5 year streak much better than Lendl's.
Just his overall record imo puts him in the upper echelon greats.
Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
None of those are best ever statistics, or anything that makes you the potential GOAT. Many have won alot more amateur majors, alot more pro majors, been the best amateur or pro in the World for longer. Nobody is disputing Vines is a great player (and nobody other than kiki disputes he was much better than Kodes) but he is not a GOAT candidate.
Anyway was he really the best pro in 1937 and 1938. He didnt win ANY of the pro slams, and Hans Nusslein (a great pro player but hardly a historic figure) won 2 of the 3 both years. In 6 years as a pro he won a total of 5 pro majors, less than 1 per years, hardly unwordly dominance (Hans Nusslein won the same number), especialy when he didnt face stars who werent significantly older than him like Perry and Budge until the final years. He took over as the top amateur player for a couple years from men a decade older than him, was overtaken by Crawford, then after losing #1 turned pro and again was on top for a few years vs a bunch of men much older than him, being overtaken again when guys his own age or younger also turned pro.
Also who is rated as best of the 30s. It is always Budge, almost nobody picks Vines as even the best of his own decade.
This argument and its meaning is ridiculous. Mary Pierce's best game might have been seen as unbeatable by anyone from 1994-1999, but that doesnt give her unofficial best player of the 90s status. I suppose you will say his best game was unbeatable too in 1933 when others overtook him, he just never brought it, just like in 1939 Budge was better but it means nothing since Vines didnt bring his best game supposably.
Only in your eyes. Just settle for him being better than Kodes.
You still havent addressed your numerous other non GOAT candidates you listed as GOAT candidates. You dont seem to differentiate between being an all time great and being a GOAT candidate. If there is NOTHING that your career is the best over everyone else is, you arent a GOAT candidate. Which is the case not only with Vines, but King, Seles, Serena, Perry, and many others you listed.
Vines is clearly better than Kodes by a wide margin. As far as GOAT candidate is concerned with him, that's a really tough question. Vines's record is fantastic and as you wrote, Budge is generally considered the best player of the 1930's but that could be wrong. Think about it, what's the main reason Budge is ranked number one for the 1930's? Obviously his Grand Slam in 1938 but who was it against? Really very few players of note and just about all the best players with the notable exception of von Cramm were in the pros. If it was truly Open Tennis the odds of Budge winning a Grand Slam was pretty low with Vines, Nusslein, Perry, von Cramm (if Germany let him play), Tilden, Cochet playing. Vines won majors at a very young age, turned pro and went on to be the best player in the pros. His tournament record in the pros was excellents and he arguably was the best player in the world for many years. To be honest I'm not sure Budge was the best player of the 1930's over Vines.
Objectively I don't think Vines is a GOAT but sometimes we do have to look at subjective opinions. Many experts and former greats like Budge and Kramer have thought Vines could very well be the greatest. Kramer thinks Budge is the best but he doesn't rule out Vines as possibly being greater than Budge.
Do I think Vines is a GOAT candidate? A very weak candidate but yes I do. I have been examining his record and it truly is terrific.