GOAT Discussions

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Santana did something similar at Roland Garros in 1961, beating Laver, Emerson, and Pietrangeli in successive, close, five-set matches.
All three of these guys were two-time Roland Garros champions (three for Laver counting the 1968 RG Pro).
Overall, Santana had more success than Gimeno on grass, winning the two biggies, Wimbledon and Forest Hills, and beating Emmo in the 1965 Davis Cup in Australia.

Dan, you "forget" that Santana was not forced to play against peak Laver and Rosewall as Gimeno was...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I counted four tournaments won by Stolle in 1967. He also won the South African tour against Laver, Rosewall and other strong players.

I doubt that Rose, McGregor and Hartwig were on par with Gimeno, Stolle, Buchholz and Ralston. See their ranking in the pro ranks.

Rosewall was not weaker in the mid 1960s than in the end 1950s (In my opinion, to do a favour to NDQ).

You mean, four MINOR tournaments for Stolle, and a South African tour, which was kind of like the end of season break for the pros. Anything for Stolle after 1967?

You mean Cooper, Anderson, Rose, McGregor, Hartwig were not on a par with Gimeno, Stolle, Buchholz, and Ralston? Look at the records in majors. The first group is much better.
I count two majors for the 60's group (Gimeno in a depleted 1972 French, Stolle at Forest Hills when Newk sprained his ankle. Not much to cheer about.
Cooper (four majors, including Wimbledon and Forest Hills), Anderson (Forest Hills), Rose (French and Australian), McGregor (Australian, runnerup at Wimbledon, same as Ralston), Hartwig (runnerup at Forest Hills, where his opponent did not sprain his ankle in the final, beat Hoad twice on the 1959 Ampol Championship tour).
As I say, no contest.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, you "forget" that Santana was not forced to play against peak Laver and Rosewall as Gimeno was...

Gimeno CHOSE to turn pro in 1961, before he won any significant event in the amateurs.
Laver and Emerson were already at a peak in 1961, the top two guys on the amateur tour.
Turning pro did not add much to a top amateur's game, other than reduction of errors, and adjusting to playing tough matches every day.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

You mean, four MINOR tournaments for Stolle, and a South African tour, which was kind of like the end of season break for the pros. Anything for Stolle after 1967?

You mean Cooper, Anderson, Rose, McGregor, Hartwig were not on a par with Gimeno, Stolle, Buchholz, and Ralston? Look at the records in majors. The first group is much better.
I count two majors for the 60's group (Gimeno in a depleted 1972 French, Stolle at Forest Hills when Newk sprained his ankle. Not much to cheer about.
Cooper (four majors, including Wimbledon and Forest Hills), Anderson (Forest Hills), Rose (French and Australian), McGregor (Australian, runnerup at Wimbledon, same as Ralston), Hartwig (runnerup at Forest Hills, where his opponent did not sprain his ankle in the final, beat Hoad twice on the 1959 Ampol Championship tour).
As I say, no contest.

Dan, are you the new Limpinhitter? You distort my arguments!

The South African tour was not at the end of the 1967 season. Stolle won also the 1965 French Championships.

Stolle has also won four open era tournaments.

I did not write that Cooper and Anderson were not on par with Gimeno and Co. I referred to Rose, Hartwig and McGregor. But I do know (even if NDQ will again blame me) that Gimeno was stronger than Anderson and Cooper. Read to pro ranks!

It's not fair to mention McGregor's amateur achievements as he did not play much in the pro ranks at the end 1950s and when, rather weakly...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

(This thread is not about who is the GOAT. Rather it is about how these GOAT discussions are trending.)

It occurs to me that since Fed has overtaken Pete in the slams count and tied his 7 Wimbers titles, Sampras is seldom mentioned in the GOAT discussions any more.

Pete's reputation seems to have been largely based (by himself?) on his total slam count number and his seven Wimbledon titles.

Lately the discussion has been about Fed and Laver, or Hoad, or Gonzales or Rosewall, (or maybe Tilden being mentioned). It seems to be about (what I call) apples versus oranges, or players who are difficult to compare (as opposed to easy), because so much history has elapsed and conditions have changed so much.

I don't know whether this is correct, but I do think that Sampras has engineered his own irrelevance by putting so much emphasis on slam count totals, and not on other aspects of his record.

I feel sorry for Sampras because he takes the biggest hit of all the goat candidates after Federer have surpassed him. Sampras doesn't have a leg to stand on when compare to Roger because Roger is ahead of him in almost every categories. And since their era is only 10 years apart, there's not much excuse to say the game/condition was difference. Besides Sampras, Nadal and Agassi take a big hit too because they are playing in modern time. Unlike Laver/Rosewall, their fans always have reasons to say you can't compare to the 60s because tennis was so much different than today. So no matter how much Roger accomplished, they will never conceded him as a goat. Every year since 2009, Roger continue to win and they move the goalposts which is ridiculous. Roger can win 20 slams in the future and he's still doesn't move further ahead of Laver. Don't you find that absurd ?

The funny thing is it's accepted that Roger continue to distant himself from the past great players except a few like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall.

Basically, Sampras was neck in neck with Laver as a goat BEFORE the arrival of Federer. However, things changed because Roger's succcess removed Sampras, and Laver is still in the discussion. It makes no sense at all. Either all the past great players continue to fall below Federer(since he's still active), or none of them at all. You can't pick and choose certain players(ie Laver) have no effect while certain players(ie Sampras) is falling further away. The truth is....ALL OF THEM ARE CONSTANTLY FALLING FURTHER AWAY FROM ROGER.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Gimeno CHOSE to turn pro in 1961, before he won any significant event in the amateurs.
Laver and Emerson were already at a peak in 1961, the top two guys on the amateur tour.
Turning pro did not add much to a top amateur's game, other than reduction of errors, and adjusting to playing tough matches every day.

Dan, your endeavour to belittle the 1960s pros is really astonishing.

Laver was NOT at his peak in 1961! Dominating the amateur field is not a prove for being at the peak. Almost all great players improved after turning pros. Laver's peak began only in 1964.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

I feel sorry for Sampras because he takes the biggest hit of all the goat candidates after Federer have surpassed him. Sampras doesn't have a leg to stand on when compare to Roger because Roger is ahead of him in almost every categories. And since their era is only 10 years apart, there's not much excuse to say the game/condition was difference. Besides Sampras, Nadal and Agassi take a big hit too because they are playing in modern time. Unlike Laver/Rosewall, their fans always have reasons to say you can't compare to the 60s because tennis was so much different than today. So no matter how much Roger accomplished, they will never conceded him as a goat. Every year since 2009, Roger continue to win and they move the goalposts which is ridiculous. Roger can win 20 slams in the future and he's still doesn't move further ahead of Laver. Don't you find that absurd ?

The funny thing is it's accepted that Roger continue to distant himself from the past great players except a few like Laver, Pancho, Rosewall.

Basically, Sampras was neck in neck with Laver as a goat BEFORE the arrival of Federer. However, things changed because Roger's succcess removed Sampras, and Laver is still in the discussion. It makes no sense at all. Either all the past great players continue to fall below Federer(since he's still active), or none of them at all. You can't pick and choose certain players(ie Laver) have no effect while certain players(ie Sampras) is falling further away. The truth is....ALL OF THEM ARE CONSTANTLY FALLING FURTHER AWAY FROM ROGER.

TMF, I don't understand why one cannot say that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez can rank ahead of Federer but not other players of older decades.

I believe that Laver was greater than Federer but that Anderson, Stolle, Emerson, Dibbs, Mayotte were not greater because they did not achieve what Federer achieved. You could accept that the Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall troika was far ahead of most or all of their contemporaries.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, I don't understand why one cannot say that Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez can rank ahead of Federer but not other players of older decades.

I believe that Laver was greater than Federer but that Anderson, Stolle, Emerson, Dibbs, Mayotte were not greater because they did not achieve what Federer achieved. You could accept that the Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall troika was far ahead of most or all of their contemporaries.

You didn't get my point. The past great players resume are fixed, set in stone. However, Roger continue to add more to his legacy but yet old-timers like you don't see any changes in their position. I mean Roger can win 30 slams and you will never conceded him above Laver. I call that biased, unreasonable. Fed in 2009 was considered the greatest, and if not, no one can place ahead of him. But Fed continue to win, logic say he moves further ahead, simple as that.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

You didn't get my point. The past great players resume are fixed, set in stone. However, Roger continue to add more to his legacy but yet old-timers like you don't see any changes in their position. I mean Roger can win 30 slams and you will never conceded him above Laver. I call that biased, unreasonable. Fed in 2009 was considered the greatest, and if not, no one can place ahead of him. But Fed continue to win, logic say he moves further ahead, simple as that.

TMF, You can be sure: If Federer actually wins 20 or 30 additional GS tournaments in the future, I glady will rank him above Laver and Rosewall...

For the moment he does not have achieved enough to rank him first (NDQ: In my humble opinion of course).

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, your endeavour to belittle the 1960s pros is really astonishing.

Laver was NOT at his peak in 1961! Dominating the amateur field is not a prove for being at the peak. Almost all great players improved after turning pros. Laver's peak began only in 1964.

The point is, Laver and Emmo reached maturity as players in 1961, as evidenced by their dominance, together with Santana.
It only took a few weeks to get up to speed on the pro tours, as evidenced by Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, etc.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, are you the new Limpinhitter? You distort my arguments!

The South African tour was not at the end of the 1967 season. Stolle won also the 1965 French Championships.

Stolle has also won four open era tournaments.

I did not write that Cooper and Anderson were not on par with Gimeno and Co. I referred to Rose, Hartwig and McGregor. But I do know (even if NDQ will again blame me) that Gimeno was stronger than Anderson and Cooper. Read to pro ranks!

It's not fair to mention McGregor's amateur achievements as he did not play much in the pro ranks at the end 1950s and when, rather weakly...

Cooper and Anderson had much better records than Gimeno, amateur or pro.
They both won major titles as amateurs (Gimeno failed here, and jumped prematurely to the pro ranks), and titles at least as significant as Gimeno's as pros. Gimeno flunked on grass, where Santana was clearly superior to Gimeno, and goofed his chances indoor at Wembley (by the way, how did he manage to lose to a crippled old part-timer Hoad at Wembley in 1963 and 1966?)
Hoad played against Santana in 1965 in practice matches in Australia prior to the Davis Cup final, and was stunned by Santana's ability.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Cooper and Anderson had much better records than Gimeno, amateur or pro.

Gimeno turned professional in 1960, so early on in his career before he had won a major, whereas Cooper and Anderson had won majors as amateurs (especially Cooper being the dominant amateur player of 1958, in winning 3 majors that year).

But how do you come to the conclusion that Cooper or Anderson did better in the pros than Gimeno, when this clearly isn't the case? Gimeno was a top 3-4 professional player from 1962-1967, behind 2-3 of Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales. Anderson had an amazing tournament win at the Wembley Pro in 1959 and managed to stay around on the pro tour until the open era arrived, even reaching the 1972 Australian Open final, but Anderson wasn't as high ranked as Gimeno was in the pro ranks for 6 straight years.

As for Cooper, of all the great amateur players from the 1940s to 1960s, Cooper probably suffered the most of all as a professional, as his professional results were largely a disappointment. He had burned out within a few years and was off the pro tour after 1962, after 4 years on the pro tour.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

They both won major titles as amateurs (Gimeno failed here, and jumped prematurely to the pro ranks), and titles at least as significant as Gimeno's as pros.

Nonsense. Gimeno became a much better player by playing in the professional ranks. Are you also of the opinion that Gonzales "jumped prematurely to the pro ranks" in late 1949? One can only make that conclusion if they just value the mainstream majors won on a balance sheet.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Gimeno flunked on grass, where Santana was clearly superior to Gimeno

Santana was the first tennis player to coin the phrase "grass is for cows". He hated the surface. I know Santana eventually won Wimbledon in 1966, but Gimeno was banned from playing at the tournament due to his professional status.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

and goofed his chances indoor at Wembley (by the way, how did he manage to lose to a crippled old part-timer Hoad at Wembley in 1963 and 1966?)

Hoad in 1963 was still very good, just look at how he beat a recently turned pro in Laver. Even after 1965, he was still occasionally very dangerous, despite the reduced mobility. Look at how he beat Gonzales at the Wimbledon Pro tournament in 1967, by 3-6, 11-9, 8-6.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad played against Santana in 1965 in practice matches in Australia prior to the Davis Cup final, and was stunned by Santana's ability.

Okay, but what does this prove? Cliff Drysdale thinks that Santana was by far the toughest opponent he ever had in his career. Drysdale thinks that Laver was a lot easier to play against than Santana, but nobody would say that Santana was a better player than Laver.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, You can be sure: If Federer actually wins 20 or 30 additional GS tournaments in the future, I glady will rank him above Laver and Rosewall...

For the moment he does not have achieved enough to rank him first (NDQ: In my humble opinion of course).

Hello BobbyOne,

What I got from TMF's post was that before Federer came along Sampras was ranked up there with Laver and the rest of the best. I would say that some even ranked him as the best. Do you agree with this or was Sampras generally never put up on the GOAT pedestal?

The issue is that Federer has now overtaken his records and they are comparable (not spread out in time enough to be considered an apples to oranges comparison), so he is generally placed above Sampras. In response to this, it seems like Sampras has been demoted to account for the relative difference between Fed and Sampras so that Fed didn't shoot up too high above that group at the top. What TMF suggested (from what I read) is that it seems like the position of Sampras is variable while the past greats remain fixed, as their records are different enough to bypass any direct comparison. Do you agree with any of this?

I hope my rambling makes sense, I am a bit busy.

I actually think that acknowledging what is and what isn't an opinion is a good exercise for you. I hope my tone is more friendly in this post.

[Mustard]

It's true that Sampras' all-time standing has taken a hit, because there's very little that Sampras has now done that Federer hasn't equalled or surpassed. Only 6 calendar years as world number 1 is left, I think.

However, Sampras made it known that for him, it was "all about the slams", especially Wimbledon, and that was his attitude. I think it's obvious that he never expected anyone to get to 13-14 majors for a long time, given the way the tennis landscape looked from 1998-2003.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The point is, Laver and Emmo reached maturity as players in 1961, as evidenced by their dominance, together with Santana.
It only took a few weeks to get up to speed on the pro tours, as evidenced by Rosewall, Hoad, Laver, etc.

Dan, You again "forget" something: The fact (NDQ: yes, the fact) that most amateurs after turning pro had difficulties to cope with the seasoned pros.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Cooper and Anderson had much better records than Gimeno, amateur or pro.
They both won major titles as amateurs (Gimeno failed here, and jumped prematurely to the pro ranks), and titles at least as significant as Gimeno's as pros. Gimeno flunked on grass, where Santana was clearly superior to Gimeno, and goofed his chances indoor at Wembley (by the way, how did he manage to lose to a crippled old part-timer Hoad at Wembley in 1963 and 1966?)
Hoad played against Santana in 1965 in practice matches in Australia prior to the Davis Cup final, and was stunned by Santana's ability.

Dan, Gimeno flunked on grass?? He beat Rosewall in the 1967 US Pro and reached final of the 1969 AO losing to a peak Laver both times plus he reached SF of the 1970 Wimbledon.

Hoad was very strong both in 1963 and 1966. In the latter year he almost beat Rosewall at Wembley.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gimeno turned professional in 1960, so early on in his career before he had won a major, whereas Cooper and Anderson had won majors as amateurs (especially Cooper being the dominant amateur player of 1958, in winning 3 majors that year).

But how do you come to the conclusion that Cooper or Anderson did better in the pros than Gimeno, when this clearly isn't the case? Gimeno was a top 3-4 professional player from 1962-1967, behind 2-3 of Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzales. Anderson had an amazing tournament win at the Wembley Pro in 1959 and managed to stay around on the pro tour until the open era arrived, even reaching the 1972 Australian Open final, but Anderson wasn't as high ranked as Gimeno was in the pro ranks for 6 straight years.

As for Cooper, of all the great amateur players from the 1940s to 1960s, Cooper probably suffered the most of all as a professional, as his professional results were largely a disappointment. He had burned out within a few years and was off the pro tour after 1962, after 4 years on the pro tour.



Nonsense. Gimeno became a much better player by playing in the professional ranks. Are you also of the opinion that Gonzales "jumped prematurely to the pro ranks" in late 1949? One can only make that conclusion if they just value the mainstream majors won on a balance sheet.



Santana was the first tennis player to coin the phrase "grass is for cows". He hated the surface. I know Santana eventually won Wimbledon in 1966, but Gimeno was banned from playing at the tournament due to his professional status.



Hoad in 1963 was still very good, just look at how he beat a recently turned pro in Laver. Even after 1965, he was still occasionally very dangerous, despite the reduced mobility. Look at how he beat Gonzales at the Wimbledon Pro tournament in 1967, by 3-6, 11-9, 8-6.



Okay, but what does this prove? Cliff Drysdale thinks that Santana was by far the toughest opponent he ever had in his career. Drysdale thinks that Laver was a lot easier to play against than Santana, but nobody would say that Santana was a better player than Laver.

Mustard, Thanks a lot for contradicting the very strange (to say the least) statements of Dan.

[kiki]

OK, about Gimeno and Santana.

Gimeno looked like more adaptable to different surfaces but, even in the relatively depleted am fields of the middle 60´s, Santana did extremely well on grass, and he beat at home, both nº 1 aussies in Emerson and Newcombe in the 2 finals of the DC event that Spain lost, both times in Australia.

I have seen them play each other and it was really hard tot ell who´d emerge the eventual winner; that was much more an issue of rivalry and political pressure on them than anything else - both were relatively on good terms, anyway.

Much is talked today about Spain´s great team, but even if that is true, thing is the rest of the teams are not so mighty as it was the case with the Australian and US teams of the 60´s and 70´s.Still, a Gimeno,Santana,orantes and Gisbert ( a top class doubles player who also reached an AO final in singles) that could have been gathered, around 1969 to 1971, would be the best ever for Spain and, on clay, almost unbeatable.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Hello BobbyOne,

What I got from TMF's post was that before Federer came along Sampras was ranked up there with Laver and the rest of the best. I would say that some even ranked him as the best. Do you agree with this or was Sampras generally never put up on the GOAT pedestal?

The issue is that Federer has now overtaken his records and they are comparable (not spread out in time enough to be considered an apples to oranges comparison), so he is generally placed above Sampras. In response to this, it seems like Sampras has been demoted to account for the relative difference between Fed and Sampras so that Fed didn't shoot up too high above that group at the top. What TMF suggested (from what I read) is that it seems like the position of Sampras is variable while the past greats remain fixed, as their records are different enough to bypass any direct comparison. Do you agree with any of this?

I hope my rambling makes sense, I am a bit busy.

I actually think that acknowledging what is and what isn't an opinion is a good exercise for you. I hope my tone is more friendly in this post.

NDQ, I firstly enjoyed your new friendly tone. But secondly I found the old NDQ again: Why do you ask ME about Sampras's status years ago? What does your question insinuate?

Yes, I agree of course that Sampras was widely ranked No.1 all-time (But surely not by all experts!) So it's not a wonder that now Federer is hailed by many as the all-time champion as he has broken most records of Sampras. Did you hope I would disagree here that you can again blame me??

By the way, I again considered my rankings and I stress that the word "I rank" is clearly not the truth but one's opinion. Why did you have difficulty to understand this? I wrote "I RANK Laver" not "Laver is" at the BEGIN of my old post.

But a big insult is again your statement that "acknowledging what is and what isn't an opinion is a good exercise for you"! I don't need exercises to post here and at least from you. I'm not an under-age child. I glady refuse your arrogant manner.

Please don't address me once more! Thanks.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

NDQ, I firstly enjoyed your new friendly tone. But secondly I found the old NDQ again: Why do you ask ME about Sampras's status years ago? What does your question insinuate?

Yes, I agree of course that Sampras was widely ranked No.1 all-time (But surely not by all experts!) So it's not a wonder that now Federer is hailed by many as the all-time champion as he has broken most records of Sampras. Did you hope I would disagree here that you can again blame me??

By the way, I again considered my rankings and I stress that the word "I rank" is clearly not the truth but one's opinion. Why did you have difficulty to understand this? I wrote "I RANK Laver" not "Laver is" at the BEGIN of my old post.

But a big insult is again your statement that "acknowledging what is and what isn't an opinion is a good exercise for you"! I don't need exercises to post here and at least from you. I'm not an under-age child. I glady refuse your arrogant manner.

Please don't address me once more! Thanks.

Hello BobbyOne,

I was only asking for your opinion on the subject about Sampras and whether or not you agree that the following scenario has happened. The scenario being that instead of Federer bumping Sampras down one spot, his emergence has seemingly knocked him down a few places so that he ends up being below players he was once ranked above. I want to stress that I am deliberately trying to not include the rankings from anyone so as to not start any controversy, as this isn't a discussion about who is the goat, only a discussion about goat discussions.

The reason I ask you is because you were the one who responded to TMF's suggestion. I have no ulterior motive.

I didn't say anything about your rankings specifically in my post, and I was only responding to your including of me in your posts in a lighthearted manner. No offense intended.