This is the real GOAT

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

The Tennis Channel (and plenty of players) are subject to that dreaded disease known as "black and white flavor of the month," also known as "hyperbolic prisoner of the moment".

They will say that player X is the greatest right after X wins a tournament right now, but it will player Y in a month, and player Z in another month. Plus they will say "of all time" when they really mean "that I have played" or "that I have ever seen" or "that I know of."

Here's an example:
"For me she's the greatest player of all time," Azarenka said. "She took the game to the next level.
"She makes me always make sure that I'm taking my game, my personality, my physical aspect to the next level.
"Today I was close. I'm going to have, for sure, another opportunity to make something better. That's what I'm looking for."

That's been the case of sports reporters in general over the years.

In the Open Era alone how many top ranked players at the end of the year haven't been called the Greatest of All Time?

Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Nadal have been called GOAT if I recall correctly. I don't recall Lendl, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe or Roddick being called the GOAT. Lendl wasn't that liked and I can see that as a possible reason why he wasn't called the GOAT but his records are up there.

Anyway that's at least seven players in 44 years being called the GOAT. I think a possible GOAT should have less than seven players in such a short time.

Guys like Sampras and Agassi have sometimes changed their minds on some players.

http://ruansfedererblog.com/?p=3456

http://www.ontennis.com/news/sampras...3Bs-goat-claim

Of course if you are including players called the GOAT who played in the Open Era you can include Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall. That would make it ten players.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

When are you going to get off the Tennis Channel kick? Yes it's a fact, everyone on the Tennis Channel list is exactly as good as they say he or she is. I guess if you truly believe that I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge?

The Tennis Channel ranks Federer #1. In TMF's mind, that lends credibility to everything else the Tennis Channel says. If the Tennis Channel said that the sky was green and the grass was blue, TMF would be on here arguing that the sky is, in fact, green and the grass, blue.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The Tennis Channel ranks Federer #1. In TMF's mind, that lends credibility to everything else the Tennis Channel says. If the Tennis Channel said that the sky was green and the grass was blue, TMF would be on here arguing that the sky is, in fact, green and the grass, blue.

I believe that's the probable reason. That's why in his mind Laver at number two on the list is Federer's historical rival but the honest truth is that so many great players, at the time they played were called the GOAT. Frankly I find it incredible that Laver is number two but that's for superficial reasons also in some ways also because all the superficial experts see is two Grand Slams by Laver and don't realize the other great accomplishments of Laver. I find it also astounding that Tilden is so low on the list as is Pancho Gonzalez. People don't know their accomplishments but they know Roy Emerson has 12 majors therefore he must be better than Gonzalez and so many others. Very superficial thinking if people think that.

Yes Federer is ranked number one by the Tennis Channel. That's a fact. However historically Federer has many rivals for greatness, not just Laver with whom TMF criticizes all the time but also Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Borg, Connors, Sampras, McEnroe, Kramer, Budge, Perry and Vines. All of these players have been called the best ever and they all have some accomplishments that merit that type of praise.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

I believe that's the probable reason. That's why in his mind Laver at number two on the list is Federer's historical rival but the honest truth is that so many great players, at the time they played were called the GOAT.

That's true when Laver or Sampras was considered the greatest during their time. But if someone comes along and surpass that player(eg Fed surpasses Pete) then he deserve to be place ahead.

Originally Posted by pc1

Frankly I find it incredible that Laver is number two but that's for superficial reasons also in some ways also because all the superficial experts see is two Grand Slams by Laver and don't realize the other great accomplishments of Laver. I find it also astounding that Tilden is so low on the list as is Pancho Gonzalez. People don't know their accomplishments but they know Roy Emerson has 12 majors therefore he must be better than Gonzalez and so many others. Very superficial thinking.

I don't think it's superficial. If you carefully go through the list from top to bottom, it include players from all different decades, different countries. Of course, countries like USA and AUS has many players on the list because they produces many great players.

I'm sure they know Pancho's accomplishment, and I don't why you guys think they are selling him short. Is it because he was in the old days? If it is, then would they sell Laver short too because he's only 10 years younger than Pancho. Also, Budge was well before Pancho's time and they have him at #6. So I don't think there's any reason for them to be biased against Pancho because he was in the 50s/60s. The same with Evert is placed below Court who was before her time.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

That's true when Laver or Sampras was considered the greatest during their time. But if someone comes along and surpass that player(eg Fed surpasses Pete) then he deserve to be place ahead.


I don't think it's superficial. If you carefully go through the list from top to bottom, it include players from all different decades, different countries. Of course, countries like USA and AUS has many players on the list because they produces many great players.

I'm sure they know Pancho's accomplishment, and I don't why you guys think they are selling him short. Is it because he was in the old days? If it is, then would they sell Laver short too because he's only 10 years younger than Pancho. Also, Budge was well before Pancho's time and they have him at #6. So I don't think there's any reason for them to be biased against Pancho because he was in the 50s/60s. The same with Evert is placed below Court who was before her time.

You will never concede that the Tennis Channel list is ****, pardon crap.
In that list ALL places are wrongly given!

[RF20Lennon]

TC specifically said that the 100 greatest are not in any order they just think these 100 are the best to play!! The game! The likely reason fed is #1 on that list is because most people agree he is the GOAT and more likely because he's the most popular

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

TC specifically said that the 100 greatest are not in any order they just think these 100 are the best to play!! The game! The likely reason fed is #1 on that list is because most people agree he is the GOAT and more likely because he's the most popular

I see. So, the list is in no particular order, except for the player they put on top, Federer. Makes sense.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I see. So, the list is in no particular order, except for the player they put on top, Federer. Makes sense.

Anyway to get back to topic, Court does have right to be in consideration for the greatest female player ever.

Let's have some fun and compare to the number one player on the Tennis Channel list.

Number of tounaments won
Federer-76
Court-Over 200

Number of majors won
Federer-17
Court-24

Number of Grand Slams
Federer-0
Court-1

Lifetime winning percentage
Federer-81.7
Court-about 93%

This is not to put down Federer but any male including Laver may look bad compared to Court also. She had an amazing career. Court also won her Grand Slam during the Open Era as did Laver.

I'm not sure about the popularity idea because if that's the case then why bother with players of the past? In their time I would say Suzanne Lenglen was a far bigger star than anyone and I would guess she was far down on the list. Considering she was almost unbeatable how much more could she do?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

I don't think it's superficial. If you carefully go through the list from top to bottom, it include players from all different decades, different countries. Of course, countries like USA and AUS has many players on the list because they produces many great players.

I'm sure they know Pancho's accomplishment, and I don't why you guys think they are selling him short. Is it because he was in the old days? If it is, then would they sell Laver short too because he's only 10 years younger than Pancho. Also, Budge was well before Pancho's time and they have him at #6. So I don't think there's any reason for them to be biased against Pancho because he was in the 50s/60s. The same with Evert is placed below Court who was before her time.

Budge won the 1938 Grand Slam, which is why he was ranked higher by TTC. Had he not won the Grand Slam, he would be ranked much lower, even if he had won the same things overall. Where was Tilden ranked in comparison to Budge? Tilden won 11 amateur majors (when the best players in the world were amateurs), and then won 4 professional majors (having been the first truly great professional tennis player), and he wasn't even able to travel like later generations could.

If Gonzales isn't in the top 5, then they simply haven't looked at the full picture of Gonzales' career, and are perhaps even guilty of ignoring his pre-open era professional career altogether. The mainstream majors were for amateur players only, and they were a stepping stone to getting the best monetary contract and challenging the real best players in the world, who were in the professional ranks. Nearly all the best amateur champions of the 1950s turned professional, and were all beaten by Gonzales in the pros.

Even after Andy Murray won the US Open on Monday, they kept saying that Murray was the first British male winner of a major since Fred Perry in 1936, but Perry played his first professional match in January 1937 and won 2 US Pro titles in Chicago in 1938 and 1941. Perry was certainly a better player after playing against Vines, Nusslein and Budge on a regular basis in the professional game, even though Perry never quite became "the man" like he had been from 1934-1936 in the amateur game.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

That's true when Laver or Sampras was considered the greatest during their time. But if someone comes along and surpass that player(eg Fed surpasses Pete) then he deserve to be place ahead.


I don't think it's superficial. If you carefully go through the list from top to bottom, it include players from all different decades, different countries. Of course, countries like USA and AUS has many players on the list because they produces many great players.

I'm sure they know Pancho's accomplishment, and I don't why you guys think they are selling him short. Is it because he was in the old days? If it is, then would they sell Laver short too because he's only 10 years younger than Pancho. Also, Budge was well before Pancho's time and they have him at #6. So I don't think there's any reason for them to be biased against Pancho because he was in the 50s/60s. The same with Evert is placed below Court who was before her time.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Budge won the 1938 Grand Slam, which is why he was ranked higher by TTC. Had he not won the Grand Slam, he would be ranked much lower, even if he had won the same things overall. Where was Tilden ranked in comparison to Budge? Tilden won 11 amateur majors (when the best players in the world were amateurs), and then won 4 professional majors (having been the first truly great professional tennis player), and he wasn't even able to travel like later generations could.

If Gonzales isn't in the top 5, then they simply haven't looked at the full picture of Gonzales' career, and are perhaps even guilty of ignoring his pre-open era professional career altogether. The mainstream majors were for amateur players only, and they were a stepping stone to getting the best monetary contract and challenging the real best players in the world, who were in the professional ranks. Nearly all the best amateur champions of the 1950s turned professional, and were all beaten by Gonzales in the pros.

Even after Andy Murray won the US Open on Monday, they kept saying that Murray was the first British male winner of a major since Fred Perry in 1936, but Perry played his first professional match in January 1937 and won 2 US Pro titles in Chicago in 1938 and 1941. Perry was certainly a better player after playing against Vines, Nusslein and Budge on a regular basis in the professional game, even though Perry never quite became "the man" like he had been from 1934-1936 in the amateur game.

Mustard,

TMF I believe is complaining about Gonzalez now because a number of posters, myself included consider Gonzalez as potentially the GOAT.
You bring up an excellent point about Fred Perry. The media doesn't even recognize the achievements of the old Pro Tour and the majors they had. Perry was arguably the best player in 1941 and as you wrote, he did win some Pro Majors.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by pc1

Anyway to get back to topic, Court does have right to be in consideration for the greatest female player ever.

Let's have some fun and compare to the number one player on the Tennis Channel list.

Number of tounaments won
Federer-76
Court-Over 200

Number of majors won
Federer-17
Court-24

Number of Grand Slams
Federer-0
Court-1

Lifetime winning percentage
Federer-81.7
Court-about 93%

This is not to put down Federer but any male including Laver may look bad compared to Court also. She had an amazing career. Court also won her Grand Slam during the Open Era as did Laver.

I'm not sure about the popularity idea because if that's the case then why bother with players of the past? In their time I would say Suzanne Lenglen was a far bigger star than anyone and I would guess she was far down on the list. Considering she was almost unbeatable how much more could she do?

Yeah but she did a lot of that in Australia, and she was tall, and her politics and religion suck, so none of it means nothin.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

Yeah but she did a lot of that in Australia, and she was tall, and her politics and religion suck, so none of it means nothin.

Best post of the year.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

Yeah but she did a lot of that in Australia, and she was tall, and her politics and religion suck, so none of it means nothin.

Politics and religion? What about her musical tastes?
And without a good sense of fashion, obviously, a woman's tennis career is meaningless. Right?
Brilliant logic.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Mustard,

TMF I believe is complaining about Gonzalez now because a number of posters, myself included consider Gonzalez as potentially the GOAT.
You bring up an excellent point about Fred Perry. The media doesn't even recognize the achievements of the old Pro Tour and the majors they had. Perry was arguably the best player in 1941 and as you wrote, he did win some Pro Majors.

Perry was never the top pro. In 1941, he was lucky to win at Forest Hills over an injured Budge, recovering from a broken nose, and unable to take risks by diving around the court.
A cheesy win.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Perry was never the top pro. In 1941, he was lucky to win at Forest Hills over an injured Budge, recovering from a broken nose, and unable to take risks by diving around the court.
A cheesy win.

You may be correct about Perry never being the top pro but it is arguable that he had the best record in 1941.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

You may be correct about Perry never being the top pro but it is arguable that he had the best record in 1941.

Looking at McCauley, 1941 was a very truncated year, with no big tour.
Perry won all the biggest tournaments, but the victories were mostly over Dick Skeen!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Looking at McCauley, 1941 was a very truncated year, with no big tour.
Perry won all the biggest tournaments, but the victories were mostly over Dick Skeen!

Yes but that's all you have to go with for number one and I do think Budge was beaten in the Forest Hills Round Robin by Perry in a tournament Perry won. Perry also won the US Pro Championships in which Don Budge participated but lost to John Faunce in straight sets.

Not sure but Budge may have had an illness or injury that year.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Yes but that's all you have to go with for number one and I do think Budge was beaten in the Forest Hills Round Robin by Perry in a tournament Perry won. Perry also won the US Pro Championships in which Don Budge participated but lost to John Faunce in straight sets.

Not sure but Budge may have had an illness or injury that year.

Budge was injured in the US Pro, breaking his nose, and this caused his loss to Faunce.
The nose was still not healed when he lost to Perry at the Forest Hills event.
The two tournaments were played in consecutive weeks.
This is hardly a notable win for Perry, who would have lost in normal circumstances.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

I'm sure they know Pancho's accomplishment, and I don't why you guys think they are selling him short. Is it because he was in the old days? If it is, then would they sell Laver short too because he's only 10 years younger than Pancho. Also, Budge was well before Pancho's time and they have him at #6. So I don't think there's any reason for them to be biased against Pancho because he was in the 50s/60s. The same with Evert is placed below Court who was before her time.

I am not so certain that they know that much about Pancho's record. Or anyone else's in the Pro Era.

Look at Emerson: ranked no. 17 just behind Tilden but ahead of Rosewall. What is his record? He won 12 majors, but they were all amateur majors. When he came to the Open Era, he won no majors. It makes apparently good sense if you are looking at majors only, or go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...and_Slam_title

But it makes little sense if you know about the Pro Era records and players, and Rosewall's competition, longevity, dominance in the early 1960s in the pros, etc.

Notice on the list that Vilas is ranked exactly right behind Djokovic at 40 and 41. Vilas has four majors, Djokovic five. Makes perfect sense if that's all one knows (or cares about).

I think the depth of their research was to count majors, and maybe a little beyond. For example with Budge, they look it up and count his majors number (six), and see that he was the first to win the Grand Slam (again majors), he still holds the record for consecutive majors won (six). But that's it.

And they conclude, "Wow!" he needs to up there pretty high, but not too high.

I do concede that there are exceptions to the logic of counting majors, for instance Gonzales at no. 35 with two majors is ranked ahead of Vilas at no. 41 who has four. But placing Gonzales as low as no. 35 seems to suggest an ignorance for his prowess in the 1950s and his reign of 6 (or more) years as world-no 1.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Budge was injured in the US Pro, breaking his nose, and this caused his loss to Faunce.
The nose was still not healed when he lost to Perry at the Forest Hills event.
The two tournaments were played in consecutive weeks.
This is hardly a notable win for Perry, who would have lost in normal circumstances.

Still as the Aussies use to say if you played you're not hurt, if you're hurt don't play. The result was still there and Perry won. That's all you can go by.

Nadal's been a great player over the years but he's often hurt and Federer is rarely hurt. That helps Federer in his performances over the years because of Nadal's decline in level of play because of injuries.