View Single Post
Old 04-16-2013, 01:45 PM   #43
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
 
hoodjem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bierlandt
Posts: 11,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove View Post
It's ridiculous to only consider only the slam count, for a lot of reasons:

1) A tennis fan is not only interested in tennis 8 weeks a year, but spent countless hours on the internet, arguing with Bobbyone (if he isn't wise) and following the results of Houston or Bastad. The whole tour matter. All events don't weight the same, but all of them matter. Slams, WTF, master 1000 and equivalents especially.
2) As it has been said, the focus on major or the number of major available to play has changed a lot from eras to eras.
3) A tournament is not only win it or lose it. Reaching the SF or the SF matter. A lot (that's half the greatness of Lendl and Connors). A player who lose against in the final against the winner is a better player that the one who lose in an early round against a nobody.
4) Winning on different surfaces matters.
5) Longevity (winning major in a large time span), dominance (winning most major in a time span), consistency (going far even when you don't win) matter a lot.

Lendl and Laver are great examples of why majors are the main, but not the only criterion.

Lendl won 8 majors which is nice, but he also:
- reached 11 freaking finals, and 9 semi-finals, which is incredible. He reached the USOpen SF 8 times in 8 years from 82 to 89.
- won 5 masters and 1 WCT. He also made 4 finals at the masters, and reached 9 consecutive finals here between 80-89.
- He spent 13 years in the top 10, something like 270 weeks at number 1.
- He had a winning percentage over 90% for five years
- He won 22 master 1000 equivalents
- He won 94 titles in total.

Laver won 14 majors (not counting the amateur slams, as the true majors were the pro majors) and reached several final. He also won a freaking calendar slam in the open era and a calendar slam in pro majors. Winning four in a row is extremely difficult and that alone suffice to put him in discussion for the goat titles along Rosewall and Federer, who have both more total majors.
Excellent points all!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove View Post
It's ridiculous to only consider only the slam count, for a lot of reasons:

1) A tennis fan is not only interested in tennis 8 weeks a year, but spent countless hours on the internet, arguing with Bobbyone (if he isn't wise) . . .
My favorite!!
__________________
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure, while the intelligent are full of doubt.

Last edited by hoodjem : 04-16-2013 at 01:49 PM.
hoodjem is offline   Reply With Quote