What is the definition of G.O.A.T

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

How is it a "Weak Era"? I could just as easily say Laver and Sampras played in equally weak eras. There's no way to substantiate it.

easy.And this has nothing to see with talent but with the reality of times.

Laver had to face, while winning the GS, multislam champs such as Newcombe,Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Gimeno,Santana,Roc he,Emerson,Stolle,Ashe ,Smith ( and he had also Kodes and Nastase in the fields) and Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade.

Fed faced a very tough Nadal and a very tough to be Djokovic, plus one timers DelPotro,Murray,Roddick ( who also reached a few more finals) and unconsistent two timers such as Hewitt and Safin.

I just think it is quite a weaker competition even if counting on Nadal and promising Djokovic, who has won less titles than Becker or Edberg to name a few ones...

Is it so difficult to assume? I mean you make like apples more than bananas, but if we talk about the shape of a banana, lest´s not pretend apples are also the same shape because it is convenient to us...

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

It means for all of the overrating of Federer's majors record (and some even go as far as to lift FO finals runner-up finishes as some sort of creit, when it means nothing in terms of majors dominance), Federer could win his one and only FO against someone who was NOT the generation's greatest FO champion. There's no tapdancing around Federer's luck in that situation.

To the original point, even at his so-called "prime," a period his cheerleaders claim is beyond anythig seen before--they have no explanation for his inability to win the Grand Slam. None--yet they want to say he's the greatest sans a greatest=level performance.

That can be flipped around very easily into saying that

'Not even the generation's greatest FO champion could prevent Federer from eventually winning the FO title at least once in his career. Federer's incredible consistency eventually trumped Nadal's insane clay dominance, and when Federer was standing on the court waiting for the coin toss to decide who will serve first at RG 09 final, Nadal was out fishing.'

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

easy.And this has nothing to see with talent but with the reality of times.

Laver had to face, while winning the GS, multislam champs such as Newcombe,Hoad,Rosewall,Gonzales,Gimeno,Santana,Roc he,Emerson,Stolle,Ashe ,Smith ( and he had also Kodes and Nastase in the fields) and Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade.

Fed faced a very tough Nadal and a very tough to be Djokovic, plus one timers DelPotro,Murray,Roddick ( who also reached a few more finals) and unconsistent two timers such as Hewitt and Safin.

I just think it is quite a weaker competition even if counting on Nadal and promising Djokovic, who has won less titles than Becker or Edberg to name a few ones...

Is it so difficult to assume? I mean you make like apples more than bananas, but if we talk about the shape of a banana, lest´s not pretend apples are also the same shape because it is convenient to us...

Let me assume troll-mode and hit you with your own ridiculous "weak-era" argument :

Laver had to face old-guy Gonzales and he lost to him more times than he should have. Federer played old-guy Agassi and won, once he had come into his own. None of the players Laver faced won many Slams. He only had to contend with old-guy Gonzales and "I-can-only-play-on-Clay-but-still-win-on-other-surfaces-because-this-era-sucks" Rosewall. In fact, the only reason the weaklings of the era won any titles was because Laver wasn't good enough to dominate them. None of them is a GOAT candidate. They couldn't even stop a 30 year-old Laver from winning the true Grand Slam! How can that be a strong era? Total joke of an era.

See, I can do it too

The truth is, there's no way to say one era is weaker than the other.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Let me assume troll-mode and hit you with your own ridiculous "weak-era" argument :

Laver had to face old-guy Gonzales and he lost to him more times than he should have. Federer played old-guy Agassi and won, once he had come into his own. None of the players Laver faced won many Slams. He only had to contend with old-guy Gonzales and "I-can-only-play-on-Clay-but-still-win-on-other-surfaces-because-this-era-sucks" Rosewall. In fact, the only reason the weaklings of the era won any titles was because Laver wasn't good enough to dominate them. None of them is a GOAT candidate. They couldn't even stop a 30 year-old Laver from winning the true Grand Slam! How can that be a strong era? Total joke of an era.

See, I can do it too

The truth is, there's no way to say one era is weaker than the other.

I never meant to troll and you know that I gave you a very reasonable answer.Maybe wrong or right but based on data, while yours is just an angered, bad mannered answer based on the emotion of the moment.

I think you can do better than that

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

I never meant to troll and you know that I gave you a very reasonable answer.Maybe wrong or right but based on data, while yours is just an angered, bad mannered answer based on the emotion of the moment.

I think you can do better than that

Your answer is biased at best and silly at worst. It's no more well-reasoned than my post is.

And data? If you go by data, one could easily say this era is tougher because Nadal is (from data) better than anyone from Laver's era. And Djokovic is better than most. Murray might get there, too. There's Del Potro. And then you can factor in Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Agassi (who is again, by data, superior to anyone Laver faced). Your argument is meaningless any way you look at it.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

You're answer is biased at best and silly at worst. It's no more well-reasoned than my post is.

And data? If you go by data, one could easily say this era is tougher because Nadal is (from data) better than anyone from Laver's era. And Djokovic is better than most. Murray might get there, too. There's Del Potro. And then you can factor in Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Agassi (who is again, by data, superior to anyone Laver faced). Your argument is meaningless anyway you look at it.

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

[RogerRacket111]

GOAT Bahhh

COW Mooo

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

I'd argue today's top 4 are major challenges capable of winning any Slam while, back then, the only reason people were able to win was because of Laver's incompetence, not through any skill of their own. Point is, I could argue anything.

How can a player be as dominant as Federer without making his era look weak? The only reason there are so few Slam-winners around is because Federer won so many, leaving so few left to be won. Back then there were so many tournaments going around, the amateur Slams, the pro Slams, there are obviously gonna be more winners with more Slams going about. Doesn't mean it was a strong era. If there were 10 Slams being played today with split fields there would be more winners with more Slams, too. The fields were very diminished. Most of Laver's Grand Slams came against amatuers. He won 14 other Slams, compared to Federer's 17. Still short.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

And you know what, not to be disrespectful to the past greats without whom the sport wouldn't be what it is today, but I could go one step further and say players back then were nowhere near as professional as today and claim any top-50 player today would school the best of the best from back then because they're way better trained, way more athletic, and are way more developed physical specimen. And I would be right. The level of Tennis in the past 30-odd years has been a level higher than where it was in the 50s and 60s. Rod Laver himself has said 1 Slam today is worth 2 from his time.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by kiki

The current top 20 sucks compared to the top 20 of the 70´s whichever way you look at it.3 at max 4 competitive players that can win a major while there were 8-10 players able to.

The issue with you kiki is that you don't understand the definitions of some of the words you use. If this is just a language issue, then I apologize, but you can see how it throws everyone off when you claim you have facts (or data) to support your claims when you really just give your opinion over and over again about how the current top 20 sucks.

You also only care about the number of slam champions available. This either means there is a more even playing field (more people winning slams) or that people are playing well past their prime and picked up slams before other great players can begin their runs. Either way, it means that the players picking up slams aren't as dominant, or that they only have to face slam champions who are pushing the retirement age. In the past, it was a combination of both. It is hilarious that you use the utter domination of the extreme outliers as a negative, when in fact it is what defines the truly great players.

You also claim to hardly even watch modern tennis anymore (you can't stand it, and you often substitute current finals for clips of former greats), so why do you even post about the current players? You rant and rave about people who didn't watch tennis in the past but then you go and post nonsense about the current players when you will admit that you don't like watching them and you often don't. Take your own advice.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I'd argue today's top 4 are major challenges capable of winning any Slam while, back then, the only reason people were able to win was because of Laver's incompetence, not through any skill of their own. Point is, I could argue anything.

How can a player be as dominant as Federer without making his era look weak? The only reason there are so few Slam-winners around is because Federer won so many, leaving so few left to be won. Back then there were so many tournaments going around, the amateur Slams, the pro Slams, there are obviously gonna be more winners with more Slams going about. Doesn't mean it was a strong era. If there were 10 Slams being played today with split fields there would be more winners with more Slams, too. The fields were very diminished. Most of Laver's Grand Slams came against amatuers. He won 14 other Slams, compared to Federer's 17. Still short.

He won 6 as an amateur and 5 as a pro, so that's a total of 11 grand slam titles. Obviously the 6 are the weakeast of the 11.

Kiki knows full well Laver benefitted from a small pool and the split fields, and he's just trolling. The only player who was competing in a weak field is Laver. It's weaker than today, 00s, 90s, 80s and 70s. No one would say it with a straight face that tennis and any sports is a spontaneous regression over time . Its absurd !

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by TMF

He won 6 as an amateur and 5 as a pro, so that's a total of 11 grand slam titles. Obviously the 6 are the weakeast of the 11.

Kiki knows full well Laver benefitted from a small pool and the split fields, and he's just trolling. The only player who was competing in a weak field is Laver. It's weaker than today, 00s, 90s, 80s and 70s. No one would say it with a straight face that tennis and any sports is a spontaneous regression over time . Its absurd !

Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength

Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

[90's Clay]

GOAT
noun
1.
any of numerous agile, hollow-horned ruminants of the genus Capra, of the family Bovidae, closely related to the sheep, found native in rocky and mountainous regions of the Old World, and widely distributed in domesticated varieties.
2.
any of various related animals, as the Rocky Mountain goat.
3.
( initial capital letter ) Astronomy, Astrology . the constellation or sign capricorn.
4.
a scapegoat or victim.
5.
a licentious or lecherous man; lecher.
6.
Something Federer isn't

[Emet74]

kiki wrote: Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade."

--

Not really; the true Lendl/Becker/Edberg era was pre-Sampras. Sampras era really began in 1993 and of those three only Becker won 1 single slam after that date. Bruguera and Muster were really clay courters and Sampras never came close to winning FO. Krajicek beat Pete.

As for Stich, he only played Sampras three times total 1993 and after, never in slams, the record was 2-1 for Stich in the matches they did play, so no huge feather in Pete's cap.

So in terms of who Sampras was actually beating to win his majors it was Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Kafelnikov, Old Becker and some others like Todd Martin and Pioline. That's not all that amazing a group.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

We all use the term GOAT however it has become painfully obvious that the term
Means different things to different people.

I'm calling on a bi partisan convention to try and come forward with some sort of unified definition of this very vague term.

If we can do that workout schewing the parameters towards ones favorite player then I think the debate will end once and for all......highly doubtful but at least it will be interesting to try.

Any takers?

There is no such term as GOAT, apart from the farm animal. There is internet slang abbreviation called GOAT which stands for Greatest Of All Time. However in the real world, its impossible for a tennis player to go back in a time machine and play on the tour of the 1980s and 1960s etc., so there is no way for a player to qualify as GOAT. They would have to play in previous eras to prove it. And that is impossible. GOAT is impossible, and that is why it doesn't exist outside of the internet. On the internet people operate via fantasy rather than fact. The internet covers the whole world, so we see a lot of highly stupid people having a voice and talking about GOAT. According to the real world however, there is no such thing as GOAT.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

And you know what, not to be disrespectful to the past greats without whom the sport wouldn't be what it is today, but I could go one step further and say players back then were nowhere near as professional as today and claim any top-50 player today would school the best of the best from back then because they're way better trained, way more athletic, and are way more developed physical specimen. And I would be right. The level of Tennis in the past 30-odd years has been a level higher than where it was in the 50s and 60s. Rod Laver himself has said 1 Slam today is worth 2 from his time.

Well, Laver has 3...

and tennis is much more than just athletic bodies and well trained machines...or at least that is the way I look at it.I am not interested in another way to llok at it.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Exactly. Apparently the 60s was the epitome of Tennis field depth and strength

1969 certainly was.late 50´s would also rank up there as well as almost all of the 80´s...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Emet74

kiki wrote: Sampras had to deal with
Becker,Lendl,Courier,Agassi,Edberg,Stich,ivanisevi c,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Kafelnikov or Muster, who also won majors in the same decade."

--

Not really; the true Lendl/Becker/Edberg era was pre-Sampras. Sampras era really began in 1993 and of those three only Becker won 1 single slam after that date. Bruguera and Muster were really clay courters and Sampras never came close to winning FO. Krajicek beat Pete.

As for Stich, he only played Sampras three times total 1993 and after, never in slams, the record was 2-1 for Stich in the matches they did play, so no huge feather in Pete's cap.

So in terms of who Sampras was actually beating to win his majors it was Agassi, Courier, Goran, Chang, Kafelnikov, Old Becker and some others like Todd Martin and Pioline. That's not all that amazing a group.

No love for Rafter? Bruguera?

[tudwell]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

Come on, no one has ever seriously suggested that Roddick and Hewitt are better than Nadal or Djokovic.

I also don't know why people parade Nadal and Djokovic around as evidence that Federer had a weak field. He's won thirteen slams since Nadal first became a slam champion (more than Nadal has won in that same period) and five since Djokovic became a slam champion (the same number as Djokovic has won in that period).