Tennis Channel last year

[jokinla]

They had Fed the GOAT on their top 100 of all time, before he won another Wimbledon, and claimed the most weeks at #1.

[zam88]

do you want them to move him up higher?

[Razoredge]

That's because he was the GOAT. Now he's even GOATer.

[underground]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

That's because he was the GOAT. Now he's even GOATer.

Nah he's now GOATerer.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by zam88

do you want them to move him up higher?

As Roger continue to win, the more people pick him as #1. And few fans who are too hard on him will eventually have to give in since he continue to widen the gap.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by zam88

do you want them to move him up higher?

Just proves the point that this forum is the only place that it's debated, with them putting him there before he won another Wimbledon and bagged another several months at #1.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by jokinla

Just proves the point that this forum is the only place that it's debated, with them putting him there before he won another Wimbledon and bagged another several months at #1.

It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.

Here is how the players are being evaluated...



PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Here is how the players are being evaluated...



PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4

Number of major titles won: Professionals were banned until the open era
Overall peformance at Grand Slam events: Professionals were banned until the open era
Player Ranking: No official rankings until 1973
Performance at ATP events: The ATP wasn't formed until 1972
Performance at Davis Cup events: The Davis Cup was amateur only until the open era, and amateur/freelance pro only until 1973

Not much of a criteria, is it?

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.

I agree that the Tennis Channel's list was flawed and that, obviously, Gonzales should rank well ahead of Emerson.

However as for putting Federer as GOAT, that isn't really controversial. The only other man who has a realistic claim is Laver.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I agree that the Tennis Channel's list was flawed and that, obviously, Gonzales should rank well ahead of Emerson.

However as for putting Federer as GOAT, that isn't really controversial. The only other man who has a realistic claim is Laver.

They have Graf and Martina at the very top on the women side, and that isn't controversial either.

People don't realize that determining the top 10 is hard enough already, let alone 100, where it gets more subjective as you go down the list. Anyone can have make their own list and they all would be difference.

The Tennis Channel's top 100 wasn't determined by one expert, but a combined of many experts opinion, and they all have their own top list.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

However as for putting Federer as GOAT, that isn't really controversial. The only other man who has a realistic claim is Laver.

But that's not true. Other players have realistic claims as well.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.

if they only considered Gonzales' 2 majors he would have have had an even worse place on the list

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

if they only considered Gonzales' 2 majors he would have have had an even worse place on the list

There's also Pancho Gonzales, at the age of 41, beating Charlie Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon by 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, after saving 7 match points. It's a legendary match that they will know about.

My point is that Gonzales' professional achievements, i.e. his dominance during his prime years, have been minimised or ignored. I ask anyone to give me a case on Emerson being above Gonzales without going into the "12 majors to 2" excuse.

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by jokinla

They had Fed the GOAT on their top 100 of all time, before he won another Wimbledon, and claimed the most weeks at #1.

that he won again proves that his dominance was due to a weak era and all his losses to nadal are valid (and not because he was past prime) and thus he lost the GOAT spot by winning. In fact his only wins were because Nadal was pre prime, past prime or injured.

just kidding, he was the GOAT before the win and he still is till a better one comes around.