Tennis Channel last year

[dominikk1985]

Originally Posted by 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.

that he won again proves that his dominance was due to a weak era and all his losses to nadal are valid (and not because he was past prime) and thus he lost the GOAT spot by winning. In fact his only wins were because Nadal was pre prime, past prime or injured.

just kidding, he was the GOAT before the win and he still is till a better one comes around.

[forzamilan90]

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.

if they only considered Gonzales' 2 majors he would have have had an even worse place on the list

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

if they only considered Gonzales' 2 majors he would have have had an even worse place on the list

There's also Pancho Gonzales, at the age of 41, beating Charlie Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon by 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, after saving 7 match points. It's a legendary match that they will know about.

My point is that Gonzales' professional achievements, i.e. his dominance during his prime years, have been minimised or ignored. I ask anyone to give me a case on Emerson being above Gonzales without going into the "12 majors to 2" excuse.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

TMF, Can you tell me why the Channel experts rank Laver second and Gonzalez only 22nd? Why did they consider Laver's achievements but not Rosewall's or Gonzalez'.

It does not honour you that you agree with the Channel list as its experts made totally wrong decisions. One even could say those voters produced just crap...

[sunof tennis]

Originally Posted by Mustard

There's also Pancho Gonzales, at the age of 41, beating Charlie Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon by 22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9, after saving 7 match points. It's a legendary match that they will know about.

My point is that Gonzales' professional achievements, i.e. his dominance during his prime years, have been minimised or ignored. I ask anyone to give me a case on Emerson being above Gonzales without going into the "12 majors to 2" excuse.

Completely agree with you on that one. Emmerson probably isn't in the first tier of Aussie greats. Would think Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and Hoad were all better players. I think rational person would have to recognize the obvious weakness of these rankings, but alsl the difficulties of comparing vastly different eras. How does somene compare a Bill Tilden, Don Budge or Rene Lacoste (none of whom most of us ever saw play) with any of the modern players?
Personally, I think the tennis channel people simply wanted to create some controversy (mostly good natured) and get people discussing the merits of various players.
Not that you asked but my top 5 (for the men)
Federer
Laver
Sampras
Borg
Gonzalez/Nadal
(yes, I know I cheated) and would think the top two (plus Gonzalez-too far back in time to really properly evaluate) would certainly have claims to being the best.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, Can you tell me why the Channel experts rank Laver second and Gonzalez only 22nd? Why did they consider Laver's achievements but not Rosewall's or Gonzalez'.

It does not honour you that you agree with the Channel list as its experts made totally wrong decisions. One even could say those voters produced just crap...

You keep referring to the two/three players everytime, as to try to suggest all the 100 players are misplaced. You think Graf #1 is wrong? Fed #1 is also wrong? Come on man. You try to come up with a top 100, and let the fans to poke holes on your ranking.