GOAT Discussions

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by timnz

I don't think there can be any justification to placing Federer in Tier 2.

Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras would join Federer in Tier 1. As to what order they go in tier one could be debated....but the fact is - that is the top tier.

Yes - Budge, Vines, Connors, Agassi etc belong amongst the greatest players - but they are tier 2.

I do not disagree.

It find it interesting that the top-tier includes seven players, not ten.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Netspirit

This. Especially since Federer does not yet belong to the "Former Pro Player Talk" forum. His career is still not over (however, some people will never "forgive" him not winning 2 calendar-year Grand Slams, regardless of how much else he did, or will do).

Agassi is one of a few who won a career slam on 3 surfaces. Sampras won 14 slams, more than any players before him. Nadal/Murray won the gold medal. The list can go on. So in fairness, people cannot "forgive" Laver either.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yet the growing consensus also is that Serena is the greatest. Evert, Collins, Drysdale, Shriver, Carillo, Wertheim, Seles, McEnroe (both of them), Billie Jean King have all recently started to call her that, yet you insist on still calling her a second tier player and wont even concede her a top 5 player all time, saying she is barely top 10, lol! So dont try and use an argument based on the consensus, you have already lost that right. If you say those people are biased to Serena due to her current status, the same is true of Federer in that case.

Serena doesn't have the credential as Federer. I agree she has reduced the wide gap from Martina/Graf after this year winning 2 slams. But still, she's behind Graf 7 slams, as apposed to Federer is 3 slams ahead of Sampras. Federer also holds most weeks at #1, 6 WTF, and countless of other records, something that Serena is vastly is behind Graf/Martina. I can't see how anyone can say Serena is in the same league(respect to their tour) as Roger with a straight face. At best, I would say her level/position on the WTA is to Nadal on the ATP.

[kiki]

Federer is like Emerson.Numbers don´t tell the truth.Only knowledge and mental open mind does.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Hey pc1,

I hope you made it through the storm in one piece.

Barely. I still don't have power and heat after 12 days.
It's so cold in my home I can see my own breath.

Haven't been able to post from home and the people are very upset with poor handling of the situation by the power company here. I am posting from the local library.

Thanks for asking.

One thing I do take exception to is TMF's proposal that Federer is numero uno and the rest of the discussion should be for second place. Federer is not slam dunk number one. There are valid reasons for a number of players to be called GOAT.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by timnz

I don't think there can be any justification to placing Federer in Tier 2.

Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras would join Federer in Tier 1. As to what order they go in tier one could be debated....but the fact is - that is the top tier.

Yes - Budge, Vines, Connors, Agassi etc belong amongst the greatest players - but they are tier 2.

Timnz,

Where would you put Jack Kramer?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

I don't think there can be any justification to placing Federer in Tier 2.

Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras would join Federer in Tier 1. As to what order they go in tier one could be debated....but the fact is - that is the top tier.

Yes - Budge, Vines, Connors, Agassi etc belong amongst the greatest players - but they are tier 2.

Vines marketing agent is the true GOAT.

Kodes marketing agent is the weakest ever

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer is like Emerson.Numbers don´t tell the truth.Only knowledge and mental open mind does.

This is completely untrue.

Emerson won his majors in an era CLEARLY absent of the best competition, as they were all professional players. Emerson definitely took advantage of the fact that men who could beat him were not able to play in the majors, and so he won 12.

This is not true for Federer, in an era where the sport is more globalized than it has ever been, and the best players rise to the top of the game. This fact is indisputable, and Federer has won all of his majors in this time period. If Federer's dont count, neither do any of the majors won since 1968. Or ever, for that matter.

Essentially, you're blowing out hot air, and have no connection with reality on this subject.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Barely. I still don't have power and heat after 12 days.
It's so cold in my home I can see my own breath.

Haven't been able to post from home and the people are very upset with poor handling of the situation by the power company here. I am posting from the local library.

Thanks for asking.

One thing I do take exception to is TMF's proposal that Federer is numero uno and the rest of the discussion should be for second place. Federer is not slam dunk number one. There are valid reasons for a number of players to be called GOAT.

Glad to see Sandy didn´t get to your mind and that still works well...

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by pc1

Barely. I still don't have power and heat after 12 days.
It's so cold in my home I can see my own breath.

Haven't been able to post from home and the people are very upset with poor handling of the situation by the power company here. I am posting from the local library.

Thanks for asking.

One thing I do take exception to is TMF's proposal that Federer is numero uno and the rest of the discussion should be for second place. Federer is not slam dunk number one. There are valid reasons for a number of players to be called GOAT.

Sorry to hear that, good luck and hope they figure things out quickly. It's no fun, our power was out for 1 week in the middle of January's biggest blizzard a few years ago, but thankfully we had a fireplace in the main room to keep us warm.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

This is where Sampras and Borg get slighted unfairly because they are in the open era. I agree they are below Federer because the numbers speak for themselves. However, Federer's accomplishments hold the standard against them but not for Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, etc. because they are in the pre-open era. As Federer continue to win since 2009, Sampras/Borg continue to drift behind but Laver and company stay at fix position. This is wrong. Sampras and Borg are always in the same tier as Laver. If Federer is above Sampras/Borg, then he should be above Laver and company. It's not fair to bump Laver up to another level but Sampras/Borg have to take a hit, all because of Roger.

I believe we should leave Federer out, and debate which player is the second greatest of all time between Laver, Sampras, Borg, Hoad, Rosewall, Tilden, etc.

Federer's record, as excellent as it is, is not so great so to make him the undisputed best ever.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer is like Emerson.Numbers don´t tell the truth.Only knowledge and mental open mind does.

Laver, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Nadal have all called Federer the GOAT Get over it.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

This is completely untrue.

Emerson won his majors in an era CLEARLY absent of the best competition, as they were all professional players. Emerson definitely took advantage of the fact that men who could beat him were not able to play in the majors, and so he won 12.

This is not true for Federer, in an era where the sport is more globalized than it has ever been, and the best players rise to the top of the game. This fact is indisputable, and Federer has won all of his majors in this time period. If Federer's dont count, neither do any of the majors won since 1968. Or ever, for that matter.

Essentially, you're blowing out hot air, and have no connection with reality on this subject.

Oh yes, I am floating in the air recalling that magic 1969 year...

I think talent wise and record wise Fed is better than Emmo; but i just made a point that numbers don´t tell the truth because we all know, that with the amazingly weak opposition Fed dominated from 2003 till 2007, Laver or Rosewall would have reached 10 more majors at least and this debate would be closed years ago...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

Oh yes, I am floating in the air recalling that magic 1969 year...

I think talent wise and record wise Fed is better than Emmo; but i just made a point that numbers don´t tell the truth because we all know, that with the amazingly weak opposition Fed dominated from 2003 till 2007, Laver or Rosewall would have reached 10 more majors at least and this debate would be closed years ago...

If Federer played in the amateur tour (I'm talking about the pro-tour of the 60s. The Amateur tour of the 60s would be like schoolboys for Federer) of the 60s and 70s, he'd have 30 Grand Slams. And I'm being conservative.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

ARFED, It seems to me as though you have not read my Rosewall achievements on November 2nd...

What a concidence!!!!!! I happen to think that you haven`t checked Fed`s unparalleled records also....i guess we are not perfect after all

[Mustard]

Emerson was a very good player, but Federer is on another level. Federer has also faced all the best players during his career.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

This is completely untrue.

Emerson won his majors in an era CLEARLY absent of the best competition, as they were all professional players. Emerson definitely took advantage of the fact that men who could beat him were not able to play in the majors, and so he won 12.

This is not true for Federer, in an era where the sport is more globalized than it has ever been, and the best players rise to the top of the game. This fact is indisputable, and Federer has won all of his majors in this time period. If Federer's dont count, neither do any of the majors won since 1968. Or ever, for that matter.

Essentially, you're blowing out hot air, and have no connection with reality on this subject.

Not so. After Laver turned pro in 1963, the amateur managers ramped up the payments to keep the best amateurs (Emerson, who tied Laver at #1 for 1961, Santana, Stolle, McKinley, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe etc.) from turning pro. Emmo and Santana probably made more than the top pros, and there was much more depth in the amateur game than the pro.

[hoodjem]

I think the top-tier is Laver, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, and Federer.

I believe one can make a case for any of these being GOAT.

Just below is a tier starting with Borg then Sampras, etcetera. I cannot make a case for one of these being in the first tier. Just MHO.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

If Federer played in the amateur tour (I'm talking about the pro-tour of the 60s. The Amateur tour of the 60s would be like schoolboys for Federer) of the 60s and 70s, he'd have 30 Grand Slams. And I'm being conservative.

divide his titles by 4 or 5 and you have the exact conversion rate

[kiki]

Top Tier:Laver,Sampras,Borg,Gonzales

Hoad is the link between top and second tier (Rosewall,Budge,Tilden,Federer)

Perry is the link between second and third:

Kramer,Connors,Lendl,Mac,Newcombe,Nadal

Agassi links third with fourth.

Wilander,Becker,Lacoste,Cochet,Sedgman,Crawford

I won´t go further down...for the moment.