There is no unified theory of GOATivity !

[joe sch]

GOAT dominance even by decade is mostly debatable, I think these choices are strong. What other GOAT for decade spans do you think should be recorded ? For example, I like Ellsworth Vines in the 1930s and Don Budge in the 1940s but these 2 decades were not dominated by either player quite the same as the decades listed below.

Tilden is the GOAT for T=(1920,1930)
Gonzalez is the GOAT for T=(1950,1960)
Laver is the GOAT for T=(1960,1970)
Borg is the GOAT for T=(1970,1980)
Sampras is the GOAT for T=(1990,2000)
Federer is the GOAT for T=(2000,2010)

There is no unified theory of GOATivity !

[pc1]

Originally Posted by joe sch

GOAT dominance even by decade is mostly debatable, I think these choices are pretty agreed upon. What other GOAT for decade spans do you think should be recorded ?

Federer is the GOAT for T=(2000,2010)
Sampras is the GOAT for T=(1990,2000)
Laver is the GOAT for T=(1960,1970)

There is no unified theory of GOATivity !

Here's an easy one-Tilden from 1920 to 1930.

I would go with Gonzalez from 1950 to 1960.

Borg-1970 to 1980.

The 1980's are tough. McEnroe was the top player for the first half of the 1980's and he had the best individual year in 1984 but Lendl was excellent for the entire decade while McEnroe declined in the latter part of the decade.
I would go for Lendl in the 1980's.

The 1930's are also tough. Vines was great in the early 1930's and into the late 1930's as the top player in Pro Tennis. Perry won virtually everything in the amateur ranks and played Vines very tough on tour. Budge won an Amateur Grand Slam and defeated Vines on tour. However Vines was hurt and more interested in golf at that time.

Tough one but I'd go with Vines since he was a top player from the beginning of the decade.

[urban]

The 30s indeed had some of the best competition ever (as is pointed out in other threads, now in a new one by Hoodjem). Vines, Perry, Budge all were genuinely great players; throw in old Tilden, Crawford, Nuesslein and von Cramm, later Riggs, you would have a great line up. In fact, some of the greatest battles, Budge-von Cramm 1937, Vines-Crawford 1933, Perry-Budge 1936were played at that time. Sadly, the amateur-pro-split prevented us from many more all time great meetings between prime Vines and Perry or Budge at Wimbledon. For the 40s one could nominate Kramer. Sadly his potential great rival to be, Joe Hunt, was killed in the war.

[joe sch]

Originally Posted by urban

The 30s indeed had some of the best competition ever (as is pointed out in other threads, now in a new one by Hoodjem). Vines, Perry, Budge all were genuinely great players; throw in old Tilden, Crawford, Nuesslein and von Cramm, later Riggs, you would have a great line up. In fact, some of the greatest battles, Budge-von Cramm 1937, Vines-Crawford 1933, Perry-Budge 1936were played at that time. Sadly, the amateur-pro-split prevented us from many more all time great meetings between prime Vines and Perry or Budge at Wimbledon. For the 40s one could nominate Kramer. Sadly his potential great rival to be, Joe Hunt, was killed in the war.

I agree that the 30s was hard to decide for a dominator, I tend to lean towards the Budge since he did get that 1st grand slam and he was very dominanant in doubles, as well, including that triple at Wimbledon. I added Borg, Tilden, and Gonzalez as pc1 noted, they are pretty clear decade dominators.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

The 30s indeed had some of the best competition ever (as is pointed out in other threads, now in a new one by Hoodjem). Vines, Perry, Budge all were genuinely great players; throw in old Tilden, Crawford, Nuesslein and von Cramm, later Riggs, you would have a great line up. In fact, some of the greatest battles, Budge-von Cramm 1937, Vines-Crawford 1933, Perry-Budge 1936were played at that time. Sadly, the amateur-pro-split prevented us from many more all time great meetings between prime Vines and Perry or Budge at Wimbledon. For the 40s one could nominate Kramer. Sadly his potential great rival to be, Joe Hunt, was killed in the war.

Originally Posted by joe sch

I agree that the 30s was hard to decide for a dominator, I tend to lean towards the Budge since he did get that 1st grand slam and he was very dominanant in doubles, as well, including that triple at Wimbledon. I added Borg, Tilden, and Gonzalez as pc1 noted, they are pretty clear decade dominators.

It would have been fun to see players like Nusslein and von Cramm playing against Budge, Vines, old Tilden and Perry. On red clay I'm not sure if Nusslein and von Cramm would not be the top seeds. I understand that when Vines and Nusslein played on clay, Nusslein won the majority of the matches, perhaps even the great majority.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by joe sch

Gonzalez is the GOAT for T=(1950,1960)

That's one huge glitch in any GOAT system. Gonzalez's reputation exceeds his accomplishments.

Gonzalez was absolutely thrashed by Jack Kramer (who was the best player in the world at that point) when he entered pro tennis in 1950. He then became the best of a very, very limited bunch and didn't play a great deal from about 51-53. When Sedgman came into pro tennis Gonzalez was at his peak and he WAS the best player BUT not anywhere near as dominant as the US media and fans would have people believe (they also continually overlook the enormous advantage that a man with Gonazelz's strength -huge serve- had when playing indoors under poor lighting and on poor surfaces. Under those conditions Gonzalez was the best). That carried over when the young Rosewall and Hoad joined the tour, however, I think it's pretty obvious that Hoad - until his back gave out- showed that Gonzalez wasn't unequivocally the best in the world. I that that's also highlighted by the ability of a physically immature Rosewall to beat Gonzalez regularly despite always playing on surfaces and under conditions that gave his opponent a head start.
All up I'd give Gonzalez 53-60 but with a bloody big asterisk next to his name.

End of the day, what this shows is that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'greatest of all time'. Put Tilden, Sampras, Rosewall and Kramer on level footing and it'd just come down to match-ups and who was best on the day. None of those guys would dominate the other (unless they were playing on clay) because they're all champions (a term used far too often because people don't really understand what it means).

[joe sch]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

That's one huge glitch in any GOAT system. Gonzalez's reputation exceeds his accomplishments.

Gonzalez was absolutely thrashed by Jack Kramer (who was the best player in the world at that point) when he entered pro tennis in 1950. He then became the best of a very, very limited bunch and didn't play a great deal from about 51-53. When Sedgman came into pro tennis Gonzalez was at his peak and he WAS the best player BUT not anywhere near as dominant as the US media and fans would have people believe (they also continually overlook the enormous advantage that a man with Gonazelz's strength -huge serve- had when playing indoors under poor lighting and on poor surfaces. Under those conditions Gonzalez was the best). That carried over when the young Rosewall and Hoad joined the tour, however, I think it's pretty obvious that Hoad - until his back gave out- showed that Gonzalez wasn't unequivocally the best in the world. I that that's also highlighted by the ability of a physically immature Rosewall to beat Gonzalez regularly despite always playing on surfaces and under conditions that gave his opponent a head start.
All up I'd give Gonzalez 53-60 but with a bloody big asterisk next to his name.

End of the day, what this shows is that there is NO SUCH THING as a 'greatest of all time'. Put Tilden, Sampras, Rosewall and Kramer on level footing and it'd just come down to match-ups and who was best on the day. None of those guys would dominate the other (unless they were playing on clay) because they're all champions (a term used far too often because people don't really understand what it means).

Andrew,

My thinking is pretty much in agreement with yours. As we all know, Pancho was not a very sporting competitor which was party due to the beatings he took on the court from Kramer and later playing (or not getting to play) in Jacks organized barnstorming tours. For many of the GOAT contenders like Pancho, its hard to even declare dominance in thier greatest decades. Another reason why Gonzalez is such a strong GOAT candidate is that he was able to compete and beat the best players in the world upto and past 40 years of age. I also agree that Put Tilden, Sampras, Federer, Laver, Rosewall, Budge, and Kramer on level footing at thier prime playing levels and it'd just come down to match-ups and who was best on the day, and that the records would be pretty even after many matches, like on a year ATP tour.

I know that Rod Laver agrees with my statement that "There is NO unified theory of GOATivity !" which basically means that the greatest players from different eras should not be ranked against each other.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

That's one huge glitch in any GOAT system. Gonzalez's reputation exceeds his accomplishments.

Gonzalez was absolutely thrashed by Jack Kramer (who was the best player in the world at that point) when he entered pro tennis in 1950. He then became the best of a very, very limited bunch and didn't play a great deal from about 51-53. When Sedgman came into pro tennis Gonzalez was at his peak and he WAS the best player BUT not anywhere near as dominant as the US media and fans would have people believe (they also continually overlook the enormous advantage that a man with Gonazelz's strength -huge serve- had when playing indoors under poor lighting and on poor surfaces. Under those conditions Gonzalez was the best). That carried over when the young Rosewall and Hoad joined the tour, however, I think it's pretty obvious that Hoad - until his back gave out- showed that Gonzalez wasn't unequivocally the best in the world. I that that's also highlighted by the ability of a physically immature Rosewall to beat Gonzalez regularly despite always playing on surfaces and under conditions that gave his opponent a head start.
All up I'd give Gonzalez 53-60 but with a bloody big asterisk next to his name.

World no. 1
1950—Kramer
1951—Kramer
1952—Gonzales/Segura/Sedgman
1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(2)
1954—Gonzales
1955—Gonzales
1956—Gonzales
1957—Gonzales
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman(2)
1959—Gonzales/Hoad
1960—Gonzales(8 )/Rosewall