GOAT Discussions

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Absolutely Hoodjem. Personally, I think he's comfortably in the top 6 or so, if you include Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, and Federer in that top group of players, but I hear you on top 10 as you can make a case for some others being in the upper echelon. I like the idea of discussions as to how this concept is trending in terms of criteria. I think post-Sampras it has been very much about # of majors and it seems like that will be the primary focus. A holistic approach is the way to go in my opinion though, including consideration of who exactly each player faced at the top over time, versatility across surfaces, and level of play. The fact that players from past eras had to make huge adjustments due to surface differences and having to face a variety of playing styles is not immaterial. Basically, everything that is really important should be on the table. I've said it before, but if you could just count majors won, Emerson is ahead of Laver right? Well, if not, why? It's because you have to take other things into account beside just number of majors won. Thanks again for the thread.

I would be happy if there were an agreement that Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer are the seven best palyers of all time, at least regarding their superb achievements. Nadal could join them one day...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Nalbandian whipped the floor with many all time greats, you should check some videos of him before making a statement. Do you even know anything about him? I watched him play live several times, have you ever watched Hoad with your own eyes? I am not comparing achievements, that would be absurd, but just talking about his game, after all there is some people around here that claims Hoad at his best would be invincible, that may be true, but from the top of my head i could name you 5 players of the last 2 decades that could wear the invincibility label as well when playing their best. So next time you try to argue my views at least have the courtesy of supporting your words with facts

I cannot prove Hoad's status as all time strongest but I can trust those experts like Bud Collins who have witnessed tennis during the last fifty or sixty years.

And where are your facts about Nalbandian and others are equal strong with Hoad? You should not blame me for not giving facts when you do the same...

[ARFED]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I cannot prove Hoad's status as all time strongest but I can trust those experts like Bud Collins who have witnessed tennis during the last fifty or sixties years.

And where are your facts about Nalbandian and others are equal strong with Hoad? You should not blame me for not giving facts when you do the same...

That is precisely my point, glad you finally got it . I dont have any proof and neither do you, all we have is our own personal biased opinion on this subjects based on our knowledge of the game. I dont claim to have the truth but in every post i read of you, you sound pretty obnoxius and close minded about other poster´s opinions. I hope i am judging you wrong here, because you seem to know a lot about tennis history and is always a pleasure to learn, but as Roddick said once to Fed...you are starting to become a little annoying

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ARFED

That is precisely my point, glad you finally got it . I dont have any proof and neither do you, all we have is our own personal biased opinion on this subjects based on our knowledge of the game. I dont claim to have the truth but in every post i read of you, you sound pretty obnoxius and close minded about other poster´s opinions. I hope i am judging you wrong here, because you seem to know a lot about tennis history and is always a pleasure to learn, but as Roddick said once to Fed...you are starting to become a little annoying

I'm disappointed about your accusation. You seem to take it as an insult when I contradict your opinion.

I think I'm always fair to other posters and I often praise their opinions. I only was "obnoxious" toward Limpinhitter after he had distorted my arguments. And I remember that I once called Dan Lobb an idiot for the same reason but I apologized soon for that. I have posted more than 1000 posts and I'm sure most of them are pretty fair.

But I often contradict other posters when I think they are wrong. All posters contradict sometimes other posters. That's a fair discussion.

[absurdo]

i totally understand the need to define who is the greatest of all times, but surely every reasonable poster has to agree to do so is impossible, unless some criteria is defined and then it's a matter of cheking qhe numbers. even then it would be a matter of consensus, not necessarily about finding the TRUTH (if it exists).

we cannot compare eras. tennis was a different sport back then. there are so many things to consider. the mentality was different, the field was different, tennis was not a global sport, like today, with so many pros from so many different places, the training was different, the materials are allways changing, the press was different, the money was different, the brands were different, so on and so on.

one can say: everyone, in each era, plays under the same conditions, so its fair.
i think this is a wrong argument. some things are not easy to ignore. for example, today's game rewards bigger guys (but not to big). laver would be very small for todays criteria, he would be blown off court. a guy like ferrer has the path blocked for the biggest spots in the sport because of his height.
i am not saying laver would not be a great player if he played today. i am saying one cannot be sure. if we look at the videos from back in the days, we see the serve had somewhat of a different importance. look at the laver roswell game at roland garros: if someone today served like that he would not stand a chance.
funny enough, we dont have much black players playing tennis today, maybe because its not well paid (comparing), but its like when basketball was divided. its just not fair.
just this should be enough to stop us making silly comparisons and projections.

one thing is sure: if today's players with todays equipment played against past players with past equipment, today's players would destroy the ancient ones.
BUT WHY? why has the game evolved/changed? if it was so great back then, with so many goat contenders playing? the change has to do with the materials, only?

probably the biggest changes came with the increase in number of players, which create a faster pace of evolving.

and that is why one cannot compare eras. what made the game more athtletic, fast and strong is also what makes almost impossible for todays guys to have the kind of relaxed domain over the tour the ancient guys had.

to suggest someone from the 60's or 70's would have something like 25 majors is to say it all: imagine someone today wining those kind of numbers. actually federer could have if he was able to beat nadal at the french, but then no one else in the era would have double digits, which is what some posters are suggesting

[urban]

And? i think those arguments are inconsistent and circular. If we cannot compare eras, okay, fine, so please let it stand so. But then comes the old argument of the athletic progress. Fine, if someone thinks so, fare well. But this is comparing eras.

[absurdo]

urban, i think we can compare eras, of course. and its interesting and funny to do so. but, as i said and mantain, we can only say who is the goat if we agree on some criteria. all else is just fun.

PLUS: i think all 'we cannot compare eras' arguments exist to HELP/MAKE IT FAIR for the players of the past. because if we use our eyes as the sole criteria, then excuse me but i dont think they stand a chance.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by absurdo

i totally understand the need to define who is the greatest of all times, but surely every reasonable poster has to agree to do so is impossible, unless some criteria is defined and then it's a matter of cheking qhe numbers. even then it would be a matter of consensus, not necessarily about finding the TRUTH (if it exists).

we cannot compare eras. tennis was a different sport back then. there are so many things to consider. the mentality was different, the field was different, tennis was not a global sport, like today, with so many pros from so many different places, the training was different, the materials are allways changing, the press was different, the money was different, the brands were different, so on and so on.

one can say: everyone, in each era, plays under the same conditions, so its fair.
i think this is a wrong argument. some things are not easy to ignore. for example, today's game rewards bigger guys (but not to big). laver would be very small for todays criteria, he would be blown off court. a guy like ferrer has the path blocked for the biggest spots in the sport because of his height.
i am not saying laver would not be a great player if he played today. i am saying one cannot be sure. if we look at the videos from back in the days, we see the serve had somewhat of a different importance. look at the laver roswell game at roland garros: if someone today served like that he would not stand a chance.
funny enough, we dont have much black players playing tennis today, maybe because its not well paid (comparing), but its like when basketball was divided. its just not fair.
just this should be enough to stop us making silly comparisons and projections.

one thing is sure: if today's players with todays equipment played against past players with past equipment, today's players would destroy the ancient ones.
BUT WHY? why has the game evolved/changed? if it was so great back then, with so many goat contenders playing? the change has to do with the materials, only?

probably the biggest changes came with the increase in number of players, which create a faster pace of evolving.

and that is why one cannot compare eras. what made the game more athtletic, fast and strong is also what makes almost impossible for todays guys to have the kind of relaxed domain over the tour the ancient guys had.

to suggest someone from the 60's or 70's would have something like 25 majors is to say it all: imagine someone today wining those kind of numbers. actually federer could have if he was able to beat nadal at the french, but then no one else in the era would have double digits, which is what some posters are suggesting

Please tell me more about that interesting player Roswell.

The evolution of tennis racquets is the main reason why today's game is faster than former's.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

And? i think those arguments are inconsistent and circular. If we cannot compare eras, okay, fine, so please let it stand so. But then comes the old argument of the athletic progress. Fine, if someone thinks so, fare well. But this is comparing eras.

I agree. That contradiction to his own statement is really absurdo...

[Prisoner of Birth]

[quote=kiki;6983166]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Oh That could be rigjht
By the way,Bach was a compositor not the name of the oncoming tablet and Mozart is not a beer brand...just in case you didn' t know

Bach was a compositor? You mean he helped in the decomposition of leaves and twigs? And WTF is majestuousity?

[absurdo]

i did not contradict myself. obvisouly you cannot compare eras in order to define one goat. that was the original point. obviously...

and clapclap, so witty

[absurdo]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Please tell me more about that interesting player Roswell.

The evolution of tennis racquets is the main reason why today's game is faster than former's.

your first sentence is a challenge? speak your point.

about the second sentence, i agree its BIG reason, but its not the only one. and i mantain my point, i think the fact that are much much more highly professional tennis players is a bigger diference.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You forget that in Laver's pro time before open era there was no clay major at all! If there were one, Rod would most probably won a few of them.

I accounted for that. Laver won 8 pro-Slams when there were just 3 around. If there has been 4, he might have won (8 x (4/3)) = 11 on the upside. And I'm being very generous because Clay was Laver's worst surface and the figure comes up to less than 11 Slams in absolute terms. That's 11 pro-Slams, being generous. 11+5=16.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by absurdo

i did not contradict myself. obvisouly you cannot compare eras in order to define one goat. that was the original point. obviously...

and clapclap, so witty

absurdo, as so many other admirers of today's tennis, you yet contradicted yourself: Firstly you said that we cannot compare eras. Secondly you said that tennis now is much more evolved and Laver would not stand a chance today. That's comparing eras.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan Lobb will explain to you that Hoad's dominance is not comparable with "Nadal is unbeaten in the matches he won"...

But what is "Hoad's best"? That's totally subjective. You could just say that Hoas was not at his best when he lost matches. You could say the same about anybody! Federer is unbeatable when he plays his best, Rosol is unbeatable when he plays his best, Donald Young is unbeatable when he plays his best. How do you define "playing at one's best"? How to quantize it? How do you decide on whether a player is playing at his best or not before the match ended (or has pretty much been decided)? The consideration that Hoad is unbeatable when he was at his best is a farce. It literally means nothing. How often was he at his best? And why wasn't he at his best in the matches he lost? Could it be that he was only said to be at his best when he won matches?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I accounted for that. Laver won 8 pro-Slams when there were just 3 around. If there has been 4, he might have won (8 x (4/3)) = 11 on the upside. And I'm being very generous because Clay was Laver's worst surface and the figure comes up to less than 11 Slams in absolute terms. That's 11 pro-Slams, being generous. 11+5=16.

Laver was tremendous on clay in his prime and even afterwards.

You still neglect the fact that Laver would most probably have won several additional event in the actual open era like Austrlian Open 1970 and Wimbledon 1972.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

But what is "Hoad's best"? That's totally subjective. You could just say that Hoas was not at his best when he lost matches. You could say the same about anybody! Federer is unbeatable when he plays his best, Rosol is unbeatable when he plays his best, Donald Young is unbeatable when he plays his best. How do you define "playing at one's best"? How to quantize it? How do you decide on whether a player is playing at his best or not before the match ended (or has pretty much been decided)? The consideration that Hoad is unbeatable when he was at his best is a farce. It literally means nothing. How often was he at his best? And why wasn't he at his best in the matches he lost? Could it be that he was only said to be at his best when he won matches?

Your logic is beyond my kind of logic. Here we could agree. Hoad lost many matches when not being at his best. He was a rather unsteady player in comparison to Rosewall and others. But he probably (I trust the visitors) was stronger in peak form than most or all other players. Where is the problem??

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Laver was tremendous on clay in his prime and even afterwards.

You still neglect the fact that Laver would most probably have won several additional event in the actual open era like Austrlian Open 1970 and Wimbledon 1972.

He may have been, but it was still his weakest surface, relative to the field. That's not even debatable. Stats don't lie.

And you can't neglect something which is irrelevant. Laver didn't play them, he only has himself to blame. You can't just hand over Majors to players who didn't bother showing up. And it's not like he was on fire, either. He made 1 Major QF after his year of Greatness and just the 3R in the '71 AO. Stands to reason he wouldn't have won anything even if he'd played the AO in '72 or even '70.

[absurdo]

i am an admirer of all tennis eras and great players.

it appears to be a contradiction but it is not, but maybe i was not clear and that is my fault:

i dont think we can compair levels of greatness with absolute fairness. arguing who is the greatest across eras is to create unfair comparisons. what are we talking about? talent? inteligence? speed? strokes? serves? tactics? all these are subjective. are we comparing results and achievments? are seriously achievements across eras the same? are contexts the same? importance of certain tournaments the same? pro fields the same? are they comparable? i am just not sure they are.

but i think its clear you can compare, for example, 2 videos of 2 different players, ignoring history and that they are 40 years apart. but this is hugely unfair for the old time players, in my opinion.

i dont think it would be fair to compare laver's level of play at a certain point, (nowadays we can do it only via youtube) versus federer or nadal or novaks level of play on a certain video. sure i think laver would lose easily.

but this doesnt reduce his level of greatness. so, we cannot use the same criteria for every era...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Your logic is beyond my kind of logic. Here we could agree. Hoad lost many matches when not being at his best. He was a rather unsteady player in comparison to Rosewall and others. But he probably (I trust the visitors) was stronger in peak form than most or all other players. Where is the problem??

Okay, what that consideration means is that Hoad's peak level of play was greater than anybody else's. That I can understand, but you have to appreciate that that's extremely subjective and extremely debatable; even in his own era.