Clay Court GOAT

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Your list of GOAT candidates was WAY too long. You included 16 men and 10 women which was ridiculous and you included a huge number of players who are never brought up in greatest ever debates- King, Seles, Serena, Agassi, Vines, Perry, a whole host of men especialy in fact. If there is no area you can be argued as superior to everyone else you have no GOAT claim. These people have GOAT arguments because:

Court- Most Grand Slams in singles and doubles.

Graf- By far most dominant singles slam record across all surfaces ever. She and Court (and Connolly) are the only ones to manage the Grand Slam, and also the only two women to win atleast 3 slams in 5 different years.

Navratilova- Most Wimbledons in singles and singles/doubles combined (along with King in the latter), most WTA Championships, most dominant single season records since the pre historic days in 1983 and 1984.

Evert- Unmatched records for consistency and longevity, most French Open singles titles ever, most U.S Opens in Open era.

People like Seles, King, Serena Williams and Connolly have nothing, other than unmatched precociousness in Maureen's case, and vague "peak level of play" arguments in Serena's, yet you included them as possible GOATs which was silly. Being one of the greatest of all time, and being all time great, does not mean you have any claims as THE GOAT neccessarily.


Then among men:

Sampras- his Wimbledon and 6 straight year end #1 records.

Federer- his most slams record.

Laver- his 2 Calendar Slams.

Rosewall- his unmatched longevity at the top of the game, 20 years worth.

Gonzales- being the dominant player almost an entire decade, and like Rosewall excelling into his 40s.

Borg- his unmatched parallel dominance of grass and clay.


Other than maybe a few of the early century greats like Lenglen, Wills, Tilden, there is really nobody else other than those. Can you even give a single statistic that would give people like Vines, Lendl (Federer has even clipped his slam finals record btw), Agassi,
Seles, Connolly, Serena, or King any GOAT argument at all. Other than Serena (only due to being current, it would never happen otherwise) none of those people are even debated as the possible GOAT by ANYONE today.

A couple of stats for greatness and I suppose for GOAThood for Connors and Lendl. Both won over 140 tournaments (Connors 148 and Lendl 146 I believe). This is a record for the Open Era. Both had many years of dominance in which they won over 90% of their matches. They both had five year periods in which they averaged winning 90% of their matches. This is super tough when you consider Sampras and Agassi has never done it.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I've already listed Vines record. 3 amateur majors, 5 professional majors, best player in the world as a pro from 1934-1938

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.

and his best game was still seen as unbeatable even after Budge overtook him in 1939.

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.

He's clearly in the GOAT discussion.

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.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by pc1

A couple of stats for greatness and I suppose for GOAThood for Connors and Lendl. Both won over 140 tournaments (Connors 148 and Lendl 146 I believe). This is a record for the Open Era. Both had many years of dominance in which they won over 90% of their matches. They both had five year periods in which they averaged winning 90% of their matches. This is super tough when you consider Sampras and Agassi has never done it.

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.

[pc1]

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.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by pc1

Just his overall record imo puts him in the upper echelon greats.

I agree, just not a real candidate for THE GOAT. Most of this crazy fanatical forum thinks Federer is the only candidate which is totally wrong of course, but there arent 20 of them either (and there sure as heck are not 10 women which is what Mustard listed including people like King, Seles, and Serena).

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I agree, just not a real candidate for THE GOAT. Most of this crazy fanatical forum thinks Federer is the only candidate which is totally wrong of course, but there arent 20 of them either (and there sure as heck are not 10 women which is what Mustard listed including people like King, Seles, and Serena).

The requirements for GOAT should be very tough obviously. What I never can understand is why so many assume the GOAT is always playing in the present? I also assumed in any sport the GOAT is probably not playing in the present simply because the history of most sports are so long with so many players that statistically the odds are the GOAT played in the past. I've looked at the stats for many individuals in different sports and I've generally found that to be the case.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

Vines didn't play any pro majors in 1937 and 1938. He just focused on winning the pro tours instead. He entered the French Pro just twice, winning it in 1935 and runner-up in 1939. He entered the Wembley Pro 4 times, winning 3 of them in a row (1934-1936), and he only entered the US Pro twice, winning it in 1939 and losing a semi final to Nusslein in 1934. So, Vines competed in 8 professional majors and won 5 of them, and 2 of the 3 that he didn't win were in 1939.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

I think I have Vines ahead of Budge for the 1930s, because Budge came to prominence in the late 1930s, whereas Vines had the whole decade. The war years would have been Budge's peak, in my opinion. By the time the war was over, Budge was slightly past his prime and Riggs was the best in the world before Kramer turned professional in late 1947.

Of course, the real reason for Budge being put ahead of Vines in the 1930s on many people's list is his CYGS in 1938. They don't delve any deeper. Even Budge confirming in 1939 that he was the best player in the world by becoming the best professional, is unlikely to have registered on their radar. Budge is considered the best player in the world in 1938 because of the CYGS, but was he really better than Vines and Nusslein that year? Perry, and even Tilden, were still forces to be reckoned with in 1938 as well.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Vines didn't play any pro majors in 1937 and 1938. He just focused on winning the pro tours instead. He entered the French Pro just twice, winning it in 1935 and runner-up in 1939. He entered the Wembley Pro 4 times, winning 3 of them in a row (1934-1936), and he only entered the US Pro twice, winning it in 1939 and losing a semi final to Nusslein in 1934. So, Vines competed in 8 professional majors and won 5 of them, and 2 of the 3 that he didn't win were in 1939.



I think I have Vines ahead of Budge for the 1930s, because Budge came to prominence in the late 1930s, whereas Vines had the whole decade. The war years would have been Budge's peak, in my opinion. By the time the war was over, Budge was slightly past his prime and Riggs was the best in the world before Kramer turned professional in late 1947.

Of course, the real reason for Budge being put ahead of Vines in the 1930s on many people's list is his CYGS in 1938. They don't delve any deeper. Even Budge confirming in 1939 that he was the best player in the world by becoming the best professional, is unlikely to have registered on their radar. Budge is considered the best player in the world in 1938 because of the CYGS, but was he really better than Vines and Nusslein that year? Perry, and even Tilden, were still forces to be reckoned with in 1938 as well.

And you have to considered that they first tour was very close between Budge and Vines. It's possible that Vines may have played the first tour injured, at least for part of it. We know that Vines was hurt and was serving underhanded in some of the matches. I'm not sure if it was in the first tour or the second or both.

Vines defeated Tilden and Perry on tour fairly easily.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

Vines defeated Tilden and Perry on tour fairly easily.

And Budge said that once he was regularly playing against Vines, Perry's game didn't really bother him anymore. Some people seem to be pleading with me to drop names from my GOAT list, but the reason I had Perry in there was because he was the first male player to win all 4 amateur majors in his career, having prevented Crawford from completing the CYGS in 1933.

Speaking of Crawford, was 1933 the only year he played in the US Championships? He seemed to play in the other 3 majors regularly.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

And Budge said that once he was regularly playing against Vines, Perry's game didn't really bother him anymore. Some people seem to be pleading with me to drop names from my GOAT list, but the reason I had Perry in there was because he was the first male player to win all 4 amateur majors in his career, having prevented Crawford from completing the CYGS in 1933.

Speaking of Crawford, was 1933 the only year he played in the US Championships? He seemed to play in the other 3 majors regularly.

Perry had some injuries in the pros and he may have not had the interest in the game anymore even if he was the best pro in 1941.

Perry had a great record in the amateurs.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Then among men:
Sampras- his Wimbledon and 6 straight year end #1 records.
Federer- his most slams record.
Laver- his 2 Calendar Slams.
Rosewall- his unmatched longevity at the top of the game, 20 years worth.
Gonzales- being the dominant player almost an entire decade, and like Rosewall excelling into his 40s.
Borg- his unmatched parallel dominance of grass and clay.

Great List. I might suggest Tilden deserves a spot on such a list.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Great List. I might suggest Tilden deserves a spot on such a list.

I think so. You can make a good argument that Tilden was the most dominant of them all. It's very possible that if airplane travel was the same as it is today that Tilden would have won several Grand Slams given how almost unbeatable he was in the 1920's. And he was still beating players like Budge and Perry into the 1940's.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

We know that Vines was hurt and was serving underhanded in some of the matches. I'm not sure if it was in the first tour or the second or both.

Frankly we do not know this. It's been claimed, but never confirmed. Moreover, the sources from the time period actually contradict the claim. Vines was serving well throughout the first tour as I documented here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...75#post6401875

That list shows conclusively that if Vines had any serious shoulder issues preventing him from serving effectively, and forcing him to serve sidearm, such a physical issue must have been brief. There are simply too many dates documented on which he was serving aces and therefore must have been serving over-arm (for lack of a better term).

And if we're talking about something brief, then by definition it is not serious. It's on the level of many such physical problems that all the players on these tours faced at one point or another, for brief periods (such as illnesses, or blisters, or muscle strains, etc.)

I have not found any source from the time period saying that Vines served underarm. Moreover, historians like Ray Bowers who have manifestly studied these tours more than I have, also do not mention it: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_11_22.html

All we have is a claim, I take it, that was made many years later. I don't think it's a question of honesty but there are instances in which people incorporate into their memory events that did not actually happen; or their recollection of when actual events occurred, and what persons were involved, is faulty. Those instances are not that uncommon.

What I object to primarily is this, if you say that Vines was serving underarm during some of the matches, it gives the impression that he was dealing with a debilitating injury during these tours; and the vague reference to "some matches" can be taken by some readers to mean that he served underarm occasionally, throughout the tour; or that he served underarm during some period of time, which for some people can mean quite a significant period of time. 10 or 20 matches can count as "some matches" in a series of 40 matches. And it's just not true that Vines was crippled for 10 or 20 matches. At most he had a brief injury. That should be specified.

And all the players in these tours were dealing with brief injuries.

[Mustard]

Does anyone know if Jack Crawford played at the US Championships in any other year except 1933?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Great List. I might suggest Tilden deserves a spot on such a list.

I agree, and Lenglen and Wills perhaps for the women (although not as sure on them as womens tennis wasnt really competitive yet then, whereas mens was already quite competitive in the Tilden and even Renshaw days).

I could see a list of roughly 8 men as the possible GOAT but women is only the super 4 of Graf, Navratilova, Court, and Evert.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Frankly we do not know this. It's been claimed, but never confirmed. Moreover, the sources from the time period actually contradict the claim. Vines was serving well throughout the first tour as I documented here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...75#post6401875

That list shows conclusively that if Vines had any serious shoulder issues preventing him from serving effectively, and forcing him to serve sidearm, such a physical issue must have been brief. There are simply too many dates documented on which he was serving aces and therefore must have been serving over-arm (for lack of a better term).

And if we're talking about something brief, then by definition it is not serious. It's on the level of many such physical problems that all the players on these tours faced at one point or another, for brief periods (such as illnesses, or blisters, or muscle strains, etc.)

I have not found any source from the time period saying that Vines served underarm. Moreover, historians like Ray Bowers who have manifestly studied these tours more than I have, also do not mention it: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_11_22.html

All we have is a claim, I take it, that was made many years later. I don't think it's a question of honesty but there are instances in which people incorporate into their memory events that did not actually happen; or their recollection of when actual events occurred, and what persons were involved, is faulty. Those instances are not that uncommon.

What I object to primarily is this, if you say that Vines was serving underarm during some of the matches, it gives the impression that he was dealing with a debilitating injury during these tours; and the vague reference to "some matches" can be taken by some readers to mean that he served underarm occasionally, throughout the tour; or that he served underarm during some period of time, which for some people can mean quite a significant period of time. 10 or 20 matches can count as "some matches" in a series of 40 matches. And it's just not true that Vines was crippled for 10 or 20 matches. At most he had a brief injury. That should be specified.

And all the players in these tours were dealing with brief injuries.

That's why I used the word "possibly" in the post.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's why I used the word "possibly" in the post.

Understood, and I had no problem with that sentence. It was your next sentence, expressing certainty about Vines serving underhand, that I was debating.

[kiki]

Vines competition was never even half as deep as Kodes.I am not disputing Vines was a more talented player than Kodes, in fact, Kodes was not specially talented.Just that he is underrated because he is a czech...and such a clown like Rios is so much talked...so much for seriousness in TT¡¡¡

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Vines competition was never even half as deep as Kodes.I am not disputing Vines was a more talented player than Kodes, in fact, Kodes was not specially talented.Just that he is underrated because he is a czech...and such a clown like Rios is so much talked...so much for seriousness in TT¡¡¡

Nusslein, Tilden, Stoefen, Plaa, Cochet and Perry were Vines' rivals in the pros. And, of course, Budge eventually dethroned him.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Nusslein, Tilden, Stoefen, Plaa, Cochet and Perry were Vines' rivals in the pros. And, of course, Budge eventually dethroned him.

Tilden and Cochet past their peak, Budge and Perry ( and Crawford) , YES, great all time champions, but the rest is unknown.Kodes played Laver,Rosewall,Nastase,Borg,Connors...and guys like Vilas,Ashe,Smith,Orantes who are certainly way better than the second stringers Vines faced.