Tennis Channel last year

[jokinla]

They had Fed the GOAT on their top 100 of all time, before he won another Wimbledon, and claimed the most weeks at #1.

[zam88]

do you want them to move him up higher?

[Razoredge]

That's because he was the GOAT. Now he's even GOATer.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by zam88

do you want them to move him up higher?

As Roger continue to win, the more people pick him as #1. And few fans who are too hard on him will eventually have to give in since he continue to widen the gap.

[underground]

Originally Posted by Razoredge

That's because he was the GOAT. Now he's even GOATer.

Nah he's now GOATerer.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by zam88

do you want them to move him up higher?

Just proves the point that this forum is the only place that it's debated, with them putting him there before he won another Wimbledon and bagged another several months at #1.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by jokinla

Just proves the point that this forum is the only place that it's debated, with them putting him there before he won another Wimbledon and bagged another several months at #1.

It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.

Here is how the players are being evaluated...



PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It proves that too many people are ignorant of tennis history. Federer is not a Phil Taylor or a Michael Phelps and the undisputed best without question. Tennis history is way too complex for that. I mean, come on, The Tennis Channel was putting Roy Emerson above Pancho Gonzales on their GOAT list. The only way they could have possibly come to that conclusion is by counting the number of mainstream majors, with 12 for Emerson and 2 for Gonzales. If you really know tennis history, you know how massively flawed that is.

I agree that the Tennis Channel's list was flawed and that, obviously, Gonzales should rank well ahead of Emerson.

However as for putting Federer as GOAT, that isn't really controversial. The only other man who has a realistic claim is Laver.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

I agree that the Tennis Channel's list was flawed and that, obviously, Gonzales should rank well ahead of Emerson.

However as for putting Federer as GOAT, that isn't really controversial. The only other man who has a realistic claim is Laver.

They have Graf and Martina at the very top on the women side, and that isn't controversial either.

People don't realize that determining the top 10 is hard enough already, let alone 100, where it gets more subjective as you go down the list. Anyone can have make their own list and they all would be difference.

The Tennis Channel's top 100 wasn't determined by one expert, but a combined of many experts opinion, and they all have their own top list.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

However as for putting Federer as GOAT, that isn't really controversial. The only other man who has a realistic claim is Laver.

But that's not true. Other players have realistic claims as well.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

Here is how the players are being evaluated...



PLAYER CRITERIA

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken
* Intangibles(contribuition to tennis)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeBui1DoQ-4

Number of major titles won: Professionals were banned until the open era
Overall peformance at Grand Slam events: Professionals were banned until the open era
Player Ranking: No official rankings until 1973
Performance at ATP events: The ATP wasn't formed until 1972
Performance at Davis Cup events: The Davis Cup was amateur only until the open era, and amateur/freelance pro only until 1973

Not much of a criteria, is it?

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by Mustard

But that's not true. Other players have realistic claims as well.

Well yes there are all the obvious historical contenders (Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras et al) and I'm sure some people have ranked each of these guys No 1.

But in a "consensus poll" like the Tennis Channel was, with various experts voting, the names which will most often pop up time and again at, or near, the top of everyone's lists are Federer and Laver.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by Mustard

But that's not true. Other players have realistic claims as well.

Yes, we have seen your list. At some point, a choice has to be made, otherwise there is no such thing as a ranking.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Number of major titles won: Professionals were banned until the open era
Overall peformance at Grand Slam events: Professionals were banned until the open era
Player Ranking: No official rankings until 1973
Performance at ATP events: The ATP wasn't formed until 1972
Performance at Davis Cup events: The Davis Cup was amateur only until the open era, and amateur/freelance pro only until 1973

Not much of a criteria, is it?

Pro were banned from slam event but makeup for other events they played. TTC took Laver's 200 single titles into consideration, in case you didn't notice.

They are also aware of Laver's dominant years and knew he was the best player in those years, despite it wasn't from a future ATP system.

They also included Laver 69 GS and 62 GS(although lesser weight).

If you believe none of the above weren't taking into consideration, no way Laver makes the top 20, let alone #2 greatest of all time.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

If you believe none of the above weren't taking into consideration, no way Laver makes the top 20, let alone #2 greatest of all time.

Laver was number 2 on the list because of his 2 Grand Slams, which serendipitiously, happens to mean a lot with today's criteria, as does Laver's 11 mainstream majors. Gonzales only has 2 mainstream majors (too low by today's criteria), having turned pro at the age of 21 and the open era not arriving until he was just about 40. Gonzales dominating the old pro tours and winning those big pro tournaments, as he did in his prime, does not fit in with today's criteria. Emerson winning 12 mainstream majors, however, is much bigger in today's criteria, hence why he was higher ranked.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

But that's not true. Other players have realistic claims as well.

Agreed. Many aside from Laver have great claims. Gonzalez, Tilden, Rosewall, Borg among them.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Laver was number 2 on the list because of his 2 Grand Slams, which serendipitiously, happens to mean a lot with today's criteria, as does Laver's 11 mainstream majors. Gonzales only has 2 mainstream majors (too low by today's criteria), having turned pro at the age of 21 and the open era not arriving until he was just about 40. Gonzales dominating the old pro tours and winning those big pro tournaments, as he did in his prime, does not fit in with today's criteria. Emerson winning 12 mainstream majors, however, is much bigger in today's criteria, hence why he was higher ranked.

And anyone who ranks Emerson ahead of Gonzalez does NOT know tennis history. Ranking players by a fixed number of majors won is too simplistic and superficial.

Gonzalez in his prime would have destroyed Emerson in his prime as he would have just about anyone on that Tennis Channel List.

[Mustard]

Emerson was seeded higher than Gonzales at the 1968 French Open, which was the first open major. Emerson was defending champion while Gonzales was 40 years old, many years past his prime and playing in his first mainstream major since winning the 1949 US Championships as a 21 year old. Gonzales and Emerson met in the quarter finals of the 1968 French Open, and Gonzales won in 5 sets by 7-5, 6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-4.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Laver was number 2 on the list because of his 2 Grand Slams, which serendipitiously, happens to mean a lot with today's criteria, as does Laver's 11 mainstream majors. Gonzales only has 2 mainstream majors (too low by today's criteria), having turned pro at the age of 21 and the open era not arriving until he was just about 40. Gonzales dominating the old pro tours and winning those big pro tournaments, as he did in his prime, does not fit in with today's criteria. Emerson winning 12 mainstream majors, however, is much bigger in today's criteria, hence why he was higher ranked.

His GS elevated him to #2. Had he never won any GS, he wouldn't be #2. Like I said, these experts are aware of all Laver's achievements, so stop acting as you are the only one who knows about laver in great details. Keep in mind the top 100 included players well before Laver's time(eg William Renshaw, Norman Brookes). They do not ignore history.