The GOAT (if there is such a thing) cannot be determined by only one accomplishment (i.e. Grand Slams). It should be determined by a list of important accomplishments, across an entire career. That seems to be fair enough.
1. Choose a series of major accomplishments (i.e. ATP records)
2. Weigh each accomplishment with a numeric value (open to discussion, of course) that normalizes the comparison. For example, having won the most Slams should be more valuable than the most 500s.
3. Whoever holds that record, earns the weighted points.
4. Add up the points earned, and that is your GOAT.
This DOES not compare the actual events against each other, but instead compares holding the record for the most wins in that event.
A quick example (i.e. snapshot in time) of this looks like this:
Accomplishment Type |
Accomplishment Weight
|
Roger
|
Novak
|
Rafa
| |
Roger
|
Novak
|
Rafa
|
No of Slams |
5
|
20
|
16
|
19
| |
5
| | |
No of ATP finals |
4
|
6
|
5
|
0
| |
4
| | |
No of Master 1000s |
4
|
28
|
33
|
35
| | | |
4
|
No of ATP 500s |
3
|
23
|
12
|
20
| |
3
| | |
Total Singles Titles |
3
|
102
|
75
|
84
| |
3
| | |
Total Weeks at No 1 |
3
|
310
|
268
|
196
| |
3
| | |
Longest Consecutive Weeks at No 1 |
3
|
237
|
122
|
56
| |
3
| | |
Oldest #1 |
2
|
36+
|
32+
|
32+
| |
2
| | |
Youngest #1 |
2
|
22 years, 178 days
|
24 years, 43 days
|
22 years, 76 days
| | | |
2
|
Gold Medals |
4
|
0
|
0
|
1
| | | |
4
|
| Calendar Year Grandslam | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | | |
Non-Calendar Year Grandslam | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | | | 4 | |
| | | |
Total
| |
23
|
4
|
10
|
This would only be meaningful once all 3 retire, of course. So if Rafa surpasses Roger in slams, he goes up to 15, and Roger goes down to 18.
You could also do away with the weight and just give a point to the record holder.
NOTE: I want to be careful not to include every possible stat that can be thought of. They should be highly significant. There are already 12 categories.
What do you think?
