GOAT Discussions

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Right. But you forget on the other hand, that the old pros did not have Australian Pro Championships. Laver would have won a few of them.

Furthermore, Laver would have been the favourite if he could have participated in the Australian "open" 1968 champ.s, the Aussie 1970 and 1972 events, the 1970, 1971 and 1972 French Open (co-favourite with Rosewall), the 1972 Wimbledon and the 1971 US Open. These make up for "losing" his amateur titles...

I like to see a Rosewall supporter that gives Laver full credit.Good for you, bobbyone.

[BobbyOne]

[quote=kiki;6982592]I like to see a Rosewall supporter that gives Laver full credit.Good for you, bobbyone.[/QUOTE

Thanks, kiki.

Even though I'm a Rosewall fan that does not mean at all that I diminish the great achievements of the other greats! And Laver is arguably the greatest of all!

I never was a biassed Rosewall fanatic as NDQ and Limpinhitter have insinuated.

In my calculations Laver would have won 19 open majors, Rosewall 24 , Gonzalez 25 and Tilden 27 or even more.

Laver has achieved the very greatest feat in winning three Grand Slams.

These four are my GOAT candidates because of their huge accomplishments, their playing strength and their "genius" game (touch and skills).

And, to do Dan a favour, I do believe that Hoad on his best day would have beaten all of them.

[kiki]

[quote=BobbyOne;6982626]

Originally Posted by kiki

I like to see a Rosewall supporter that gives Laver full credit.Good for you, bobbyone.[/QUOTE

Thanks, kiki.

Even though I'm a Rosewall fan that does not mean at all that I diminish the great achievements of the other greats! And Laver is arguably the greatest of all!

I never was a biassed Rosewall fanatic as NDQ and Limpinhitter have insinuated.

In my calculations Laver would have won 19 open majors, Rosewall 24 , Gonzalez 25 and Tilden 27 or even more.

Laver has achieved the very greatest feat in winning three Grand Slams.

These four are my GOAT candidates because of their huge accomplishments, their playind strength and their "genius" game (touch and skills).

And, to do Dan a favour, I do believe that Hoad on his best day would have beaten all of them.

This is exactly my opinion, too.Hoad, on a good day is arguably the best ever tennis machine.I don´t think there has ever been a better quarter than that of 63 or 64, with laver and Rosewall at their peak, and Gonzales and Hoad, for different reasons, not at their peak but able to beat anybody on their good days.

I liked a lot the big four of the early 80´s and the early 90´s, but I cannot immagine more talent per square inch than that of 63 to 65.

Myself I admire Laver but I have a great feeling for Rosewall´s game.it is hard for me, it is like being asked if you love mom more than dad or the other way back, because I have had the privilge of watching both Laver and Rosewall and it is like listening to the best ever R&R band and the best ever jaz Quarter.

Laver was Led Zeppelin and Rosewall the Miles Davis quarter.I enjoy both.

[BobbyOne]

[quote=kiki;6982640]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

This is exactly my opinion, too.Hoad, on a good day is arguably the best ever tennis machine.I don´t think there has ever been a better quarter than that of 63 or 64, with laver and Rosewall at their peak, and Gonzales and Hoad, for different reasons, not at their peak but able to beat anybody on their good days.

I liked a lot the big four of the early 80´s and the early 90´s, but I cannot immagine more talent per square inch than that of 63 to 65.

Myself I admire Laver but I have a great feeling for Rosewall´s game.it is hard for me, it is like being asked if you love mom more than dad or the other way back, because I have had the privilge of watching both Laver and Rosewall and it is like listening to the best ever R&R band and the best ever jaz Quarter.

Laver was Led Zeppelin and Rosewall the Miles Davis quarter.I enjoy both.

As I am a classic fan, Laver and Rosewall are to me like Schubert and Beethoven...Tilden and Gonzalez like Bach and Mozart...

[sonicare]

[ARFED]

Something that trully wonders me is how in such a small window of time (10 to 15 years) emerged numerous goat contenders (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Kramer, etc), at least according to some posters here. So we have to believe that in a sport that has a history of over 150 years, the majority of the greatest players were from the 50`s and 60`s. Yes, this sounds pretty logical if you ask me. Even more logical taking into account how much has "decreased" the number of players worldwide in the last 50 years....gimme a break, would you? For the record, i do believe that the best from any era would find the way to excel on any other era, but this "all things from the past were better" kind of reasoning is getting beyond ridiculous. You won`t win a debate against a 5 year old with this crap

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Right. But you forget on the other hand, that the old pros did not have Australian Pro Championships. Laver would have won a few of them.

Furthermore, Laver would have been the favourite if he could have participated in the Australian "open" 1968 champ.s, the Aussie 1970 and 1972 events, the 1970, 1971 and 1972 French Open (co-favourite with Rosewall), the 1972 Wimbledon and the 1971 US Open. These make up for "losing" his amateur titles...

I accounted for the dearth of the 4th pro-Slam in my previous post, the one before my post in response to yours.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Something that trully wonders me is how in such a small window of time (10 to 15 years) emerged numerous goat contenders (Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Kramer, etc), at least according to some posters here. So we have to believe that in a sport that has a history of over 150 years, the majority of the greatest players were from the 50`s and 60`s. Yes, this sounds pretty logical if you ask me. Even more logical taking into account how much has "decreased" the number of players worldwide in the last 50 years....gimme a break, would you? For the record, i do believe that the best from any era would find the way to excel on any other era, but this "all things from the past were better" kind of reasoning is getting beyond ridiculous. You won`t win a debate against a 5 year old with this crap

The only reason they're all held up on a pedestal is because they had longevity (in a much less athletic sport than now) and because each of them has a ton of Grand Slams and/or pro-Slams (thanks to split fields with limited competition).

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

The only reason they're all held up on a pedestal is because they had longevity (in a much less athletic sport than now) and because each of them has a ton of Grand Slams and/or pro-Slams (thanks to split fields with limited competition).

Gonzales was the best player for 8 years. Laver was the best player in the world for 7 years. Hoad was considered unbeatable when he played his best tennis. Kramer revolutionised tennis, considerably widening the quality gap between the top professional players and the top amateur players from 1948 onwards. They are on a pedestal because they were that good.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by kiki

Why are you so obssesed with that.Is the closet too locked for some people to come off it?

Because it seriously offends me when idiots try and justify a player's superiority based on sexual preference, which is exactly what you tried to do. I was also extremely upset at another poster openly expressed his hatred for Jews. I am neither Jewish nor homosexual, but accusing players and other posters of such as if it were some insult expresses an incredible backwardness of thinking I can only attribute to you, kiki. Congratulations.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales was the best player for 8 years. Laver was the best player in the world for 7 years. Hoad was considered unbeatable when he played his best tennis. Kramer revolutionised tennis, considerably widening the quality gap between the top professional players and the top amateur players from 1948 onwards. They are on a pedestal because they were that good.

Sampras was the best player for 6 years. Agassi was arguably the greatest returner ever and possibly the best pure ball striker too. Federer has 17 open slams and 300+ weeks at number 1. Djokovic has the best court coverage ever (not even debatable). Safin, nalbandian, etc, was/is considered unbetable when playing their best. Nadal is the clay goat. Your point???

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Gonzales was the best player for 8 years. Laver was the best player in the world for 7 years. Hoad was considered unbeatable when he played his best tennis. Kramer revolutionised tennis, considerably widening the quality gap between the top professional players and the top amateur players from 1948 onwards. They are on a pedestal because they were that good.

Why don't we hear the same arguments for Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray? Why do people say the field is weak when these guys dominate but not when Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall and Hoad were dominating? I'm not arguing against the GOAT-ness of all of them. It's just that something has to give. You can't have it both ways. Besides, you and I both know that it was significantly easier winning a Major back then than it is now. Tennis is now more global, more professional, more competitive, and more athletic.

PS : The consideration that Hoad was unbeatable when he played his best Tennis is as meaningless as, "Nadal is unbeaten in the matches that he won."

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Carsomyr

Because it seriously offends me when idiots try and justify a player's superiority based on sexual preference, which is exactly what you tried to do. I was also extremely upset at another poster openly expressed his hatred for Jews. I am neither Jewish nor homosexual, but accusing players and other posters of such as if it were some insult expresses an incredible backwardness of thinking I can only attribute to you, kiki. Congratulations.

Kiki belongs in the 3rd century with primates.

[borg number one]

This was an amazing group of players when it comes to "depth at the top". Then, add in Lendl, Vilas, and Gerulaitis just for starters! I'm really enjoying the current dynamic as well, since we have four great players at the top of the tennis mountain. I think that Nadal will be back in great form after a tournament or two.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Djokovic has the best court coverage ever (not even debatable).

LOL this is extremely debateable. I wouldnt even consider Djokovic to have the best court coverage of his own era in fact. Nadal taking into account their whole careers (not just Djokovic in 2011) is better, especialy since Djokovic's movement on grass isnt anything extraordinary, and he took years to get comfortable sliding that well on clay, and even prime Federer is probably better overall. In fact I have not heard anyone until now even suggest Djokovic has the best court coverage in tennis history. The only best anything I have heard him having to some people is return of serve, which is probably also wrong and overhyping him due to his current status.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL this is extremely debateable. I wouldnt even consider Djokovic to have the best court coverage of his own era in fact. Nadal taking into account their whole careers (not just Djokovic in 2011) is better, especialy since Djokovic's movement on grass isnt anything extraordinary, and he took years to get comfortable sliding that well on clay, and even prime Federer is probably better overall. In fact I have not heard anyone until now even suggest Djokovic has the best court coverage in tennis history. The only best anything I have heard him having to some people is return of serve, which is probably also wrong and overhyping him due to his current status.

Yeah, have to agree with you on this one. Just from his era, Nadal is better on Grass and Clay, prime-Federer is better on Grass and Clay. Djokovic could be the best on Hards but even that's debatable.

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL this is extremely debateable. I wouldnt even consider Djokovic to have the best court coverage of his own era in fact. Nadal taking into account their whole careers (not just Djokovic in 2011) is better, especialy since Djokovic's movement on grass isnt anything extraordinary, and he took years to get comfortable sliding that well on clay, and even prime Federer is probably better overall. In fact I have not heard anyone until now even suggest Djokovic has the best court coverage in tennis history. The only best anything I have heard him having to some people is return of serve, which is probably also wrong and overhyping him due to his current status.

Fair point about Nadal on clay, but his ability to cover the court and counterpunch on that surface has to do as well with his stroke technique (his extreme grip and racquet head acceleration allows him to retrive balls like a freakin wall) and regarding Federer his court coverage has to do more with his amazing footwork and anticipation rather than pure athleticism. So overall i would undoubtedly pick Djokovic

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Fair point about Nadal on clay, but his ability to cover the court and counterpunch on that surface has to do as well with his stroke technique (his extreme grip and racquet head acceleration allows him to retrive balls like a freakin wall) and regarding Federer his court coverage has to do more with his amazing footwork and anticipation rather than pure athleticism. So overall i would undoubtedly pick Djokovic

Well that is your opinion but it clearly is not undisputable, which was your claim, if most people would disagree with you. You dont even mention the players from other eras like Borg, Chang, Hewitt, who all arguably have better court coverage than Djokovic as well.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Well that is your opinion but it clearly is not undisputable, which was your claim, if most people would disagree with you. You dont even mention the players from other eras like Borg, Chang, Hewitt, who all arguably have better court coverage than Djokovic as well.

Hey, NA. Laver has just 13 pro-level Majors. And only one of them is on Clay. How exactly is he the GOAT?

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Well that is your opinion but it clearly is not undisputable, which was your claim, if most people would disagree with you. You dont even mention the players from other eras like Borg, Chang, Hewitt, who all arguably have better court coverage than Djokovic as well.

Us open and Aussie open finals between Nadal and Djoker, that is all i have left to say regarding this subject, but as you well put i could be wrong with the non debatable thing