GOAT Discussions

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ARFED

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

ARFED, I agree that we all are not perfect.

I guess Federer's feats are much better documented than Rosewall's (or even Laver's for that matter). That's the reason why I use to hint to Ken's achievements.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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.

Dan, In the late 1959 the depth was also better in amateur tennis even though the pros were clerarly the best (but just a small group). But you use to say that the pros then were extremely strong which is the thruth. So, why do you belittle the 1960's pros? They had Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Gimeno, Buchholz, Anderson, Olmedo, Stolle, Ralston...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by 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.

hoodjem , interesting post and list.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by 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.

kiki, I rank Kramer, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl ahead of Perry who usually is overrated. I also rank Vines ahead of Perry. He was clearly stronger. It's not just a case of good management...

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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.

Of course there was more depth in the Amateur field, there were more players. But the very best were still playing the pro tour. Unless you consider guys like Laver lesser players than Emerson, my point remains: that the guys most likely to beat Emerson in majors were not able to play.

If we translated it to today's game, and take out 7 or 8 of the top 10 players, but leave the remainder on tour, there'd still be significant depth due to the sheer number of good players outside the top 10, but the major slam contenders would no longer be around.

Which is my entire point.. Emerson didn't face the very best for a significant number of his major wins.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Of course there was more depth in the Amateur field, there were more players. But the very best were still playing the pro tour. Unless you consider guys like Laver lesser players than Emerson, my point remains: that the guys most likely to beat Emerson in majors were not able to play.

If we translated it to today's game, and take out 7 or 8 of the top 10 players, but leave the remainder on tour, there'd still be significant depth due to the sheer number of good players outside the top 10, but the major slam contenders would no longer be around.

Which is my entire point.. Emerson didn't face the very best for a significant number of his major wins.

Right. 12 majors sound much but in reality they are rather few considering that the five best players (or even more) did not compete in the amateur ranks. A really great player would have won much more big titles, for instance a Laver or Rosewall. Imagine Laver would have stayed amateur: He surely would have won more than 12 majors from 1962 to 1967....

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Right. 12 majors sound much but in reality they are rather few considering that the five best players (or even more) did not compete in the amateur ranks. A really great player would have won much more big titles, for instance a Laver or Rosewall. Imagine Laver would have stayed amateur: He surely would have won more than 12 majors from 1962 to 1967....

Agreed. I think it's unfortunate that there was a division of the tennis ranks in this way, it would have been much easier to have discussions like this, on a more even footing.

That said, i dont believe in any one person being GOAT, but do consider Federer one of the most worthy candidates; not just because of his resume, but his game itself.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Agreed. I think it's unfortunate that there was a division of the tennis ranks in this way, it would have been much easier to have discussions like this, on a more even footing.

That said, i dont believe in any one person being GOAT, but do consider Federer one of the most worthy candidates; not just because of his resume, but his game itself.

Federer's backhand is not a strength. It's too defensive. Younger fans blame Rosewall for his "slice backhand" but Federer plays much more slice than Muscles who used a stroke between slice and fast drive. Laver and Rosewall would have countered it with strong volleys. Also Roger's volley does not reach the Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche standard...

[Cup8489]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federer's backhand is not a strength. It's too defensive. Younger fans blame Rosewall for his "slice backhand" but Federer plays much more slice than Muscles who used a stroke between slice and fast drive. Laver and Rosewall would have countered it with strong volleys. Also Roger's volley does not reach the Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche standard...

Ok, so his game is not total offense, so he must not be one of the best players ever.

I'm not sure why you're so stuck in the past, those guys never faced passing shots like Federer did, and Federer's backhand sets up his forehand. It's not a defensive shot, its a shot to set up the point.

Oh, and those are not the only shots in the game. There's serve, return of serve, forehand, and also movement as well. Federer's game is greater than the sum of its parts. None of his shots are the best ever, except maybe the forehand, but combined it's one of the most effective and lethal combinations ever.

So what if he's not the greatest volleyer ever. He doesn't need to be. Nor does he need to have the greatest backhand ever. You're just being biased, setting unrealistic standards. I mean, why isn't the Laver serve/forehand combo as lethal as Federers? Surely he can't be the GOAT if his 1-2 punch is so weak?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federer's backhand is not a strength. It's too defensive. Younger fans blame Rosewall for his "slice backhand" but Federer plays much more slice than Muscles who used a stroke between slice and fast drive. Laver and Rosewall would have countered it with strong volleys. Also Roger's volley does not reach the Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche standard...

Hey BobbyOne,

Please go and watch some matches of Federer versus players who would come in to the net often. The Sampras match, matches with Henman along with many others. Federer often made them look like fools at the net with just his backhand pass.

The variety was incredible. Everything from flick backhand passes to inside out drives. The commentators would often just laugh because the net player had no shot whatsoever.

Fed controls the tempo of the rallies with his backhand and even now he is capable of going backhand to backhand against the very best. There is no doubt that he has trouble going backhand to forehand with Nadal, especially on clay, but almost any one hander is going to have issues with that.

His incredible backhand and shotmaking in general was the reason why I loved to watch him play before he started winning everything. His forehand has always been better, but there was nothing like watching a great approach shot to his backhand get flicked back for a winner. Beautiful stuff.

As an aside, I'll never understand how anyone can't appreciate Fed's game. I enjoyed watching Sampras and he was obviously great, but I never got that same feeling with him that I did with Federer. Fed was the guy who broke all the rules. He hit all the shots that your coach says are too risky, and he made it happen match after match. I don't think Federer is as much like that anymore, which is a shame, but you have to do what you have to do.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sampras should be in the top tier if you are including Laver, Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall. Federer shouldn't be on the list because he's a level above Sampras.

And if Borg is below them, then Nadal should be in there too.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federer's backhand is not a strength. It's too defensive. Younger fans blame Rosewall for his "slice backhand" but Federer plays much more slice than Muscles who used a stroke between slice and fast drive. Laver and Rosewall would have countered it with strong volleys. Also Roger's volley does not reach the Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche standard...

The players have much bigger game today. Rosewall never face a player with massive groundstroke(i.e. Del Potro). His back hand never got tested unlike Federer who played in an era that suits for a 2 handed backhand. Volleying in the 60s is fine but to try it today like they did against today's players, it's suicidal. Please watch some tennis!

[krosero]

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.

So good to hear from you PC1, hope you get at least the heat back in your home ASAP.

[TMF]

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.

Hi PC1. Hope you sort out everything as soon as possible. You have a lot of reading to catch up when you get back.

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

Ok. I know you believe Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, etc are in the same top tier. However, Sampras < Federer, there's no more debate because Fed owns Sampras in almost every categories. It doesn't make sense to say Federer = Sampras = Laver = Borg = Gonzales etc. And while you included Borg in the top tier with the rest, you should include Nadal too because both players are virtually dead even. But this doesn't make sense either because Federer > Nadal. See my point?

Funny how old-timers criticize The Tennis Channel for their top 100 ranking list, but the way people rank players on this forum is way out of whack.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by TMF

Hi PC1. Hope you sort out everything as soon as possible. You have a lot of reading to catch up when you get back.




Ok. I know you believe Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, etc are in the same top tier. However, Sampras < Federer, there's no more debate because Fed owns Sampras in almost every categories. It doesn't make sense to say Federer = Sampras = Laver = Borg = Gonzales etc. And while you included Borg in the top tier with the rest, you should include Nadal too because both players are virtually dead even. But this doesn't make sense either because Federer > Nadal. See my point?

Funny how old-timers criticize The Tennis Channel for their top 100 ranking list, but the way people rank players on this forum is way out of whack.

Bang. On. Point.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I rank Kramer, Connors, McEnroe and Lendl ahead of Perry who usually is overrated. I also rank Vines ahead of Perry. He was clearly stronger. It's not just a case of good management...

Then Kodes is second tier since he won the same number of majors as Vines...but IN TWO DIFFERENT SURFACES¡¡¡¡

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Hi PC1. Hope you sort out everything as soon as possible. You have a lot of reading to catch up when you get back.




Ok. I know you believe Laver, Sampras, Borg, Gonzales, etc are in the same top tier. However, Sampras < Federer, there's no more debate because Fed owns Sampras in almost every categories. It doesn't make sense to say Federer = Sampras = Laver = Borg = Gonzales etc. And while you included Borg in the top tier with the rest, you should include Nadal too because both players are virtually dead even. But this doesn't make sense either because Federer > Nadal. See my point?

Funny how old-timers criticize The Tennis Channel for their top 100 ranking list, but the way people rank players on this forum is way out of whack.

Yes, Nadal is even with Borg...Nadal won five consecutive Wimblies, that´s right.Nadal won 3 indoor majors, yes, that´s right...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Yes, Nadal is even with Borg...Nadal won five consecutive Wimblies, that´s right.Nadal won 3 indoor majors, yes, that´s right...

Nadal won 21 MS.
Nadal won all 4 slams(career slam) on three different surfaces while Borg only won Wimbledon/RG.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Bang. On. Point.

Thank you. Some people ranked players at certain tier one day and a different tier the next day. lol

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Nadal won 21 MS.
Nadal won all 4 slams(career slam) on three different surfaces while Borg only won Wimbledon/RG.

Borg only once played at the Australian Open (in 1974), and that was before he had even won a major. Yes, the US Open was his bogey tournament, losing in 4 finals (2 to Connors, 2 to McEnroe), but he did win a WCT Dallas title in 1976 and 2 Masters titles in January 1980 and January 1981. This added to 6 French Open titles and 5 Wimbledon titles (including winning both in 3 different calendar years) makes him a GOAT candidate. He was only 25 when he played in his last major, too.