Nickognito
Rookie
Hi everyone. I'm a new user and I recently found this very interesting forum with great analysis for the GOAT debate.
I would like to congrat everyone, but most of all Wuornos and his great rankings.
I would like to ask him if he could kindly share his enormous statisical material with results, DOT and ELO rankigs, etc. It would be great.
I would like to ask him aso what he thinks about a bayesian elo rating for tennis (http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/#links)
I think that we expect the greater player of the time to have different kind of domination:
- domination in a single match
- domination in one year
- domination in few years
- domination in a decade or more
The GOAT in not necessarily the best player in each category, but I think he has to be of the best.
Vines, or Hoad are between the best in the single match, but not for years.
McEnroe is great in the single match , in one year, and maybe in the span of five years, but we think that his career is too short at this level.
Lendl was dominating for one year and for a span of three years like few players did, and he was competitive at a very high levale for more than a decade, but maybe he's not as competitive in the single match, where he's maybe not better than McEnroe, Becker or even Edberg and Wilander.
So, I think that the question 'it's better to dominate five years and retire or to win slams for 15 years without such domination?' is incorrect.
The GOAT must be one of the best in each category, and a ranking must have a 'value' for each category.
So maybe the DOT ratings are a wonderful way to let us know a kind of domination of a player (maybe the more important), bit i think that it has to be integrated with other different kind of ratings.
What do you think about it?
Just to tell something about me: I'm italian, i'm debating this kind of questions for years in an italian forum, and so it's very intersting to be here. I subjectively think that Pancho Gonzales is maybe the GOAT, even if I am a Pete Sampras fan.
Regards,
Cristiano
I would like to congrat everyone, but most of all Wuornos and his great rankings.
I would like to ask him if he could kindly share his enormous statisical material with results, DOT and ELO rankigs, etc. It would be great.
I would like to ask him aso what he thinks about a bayesian elo rating for tennis (http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/#links)
I think that we expect the greater player of the time to have different kind of domination:
- domination in a single match
- domination in one year
- domination in few years
- domination in a decade or more
The GOAT in not necessarily the best player in each category, but I think he has to be of the best.
Vines, or Hoad are between the best in the single match, but not for years.
McEnroe is great in the single match , in one year, and maybe in the span of five years, but we think that his career is too short at this level.
Lendl was dominating for one year and for a span of three years like few players did, and he was competitive at a very high levale for more than a decade, but maybe he's not as competitive in the single match, where he's maybe not better than McEnroe, Becker or even Edberg and Wilander.
So, I think that the question 'it's better to dominate five years and retire or to win slams for 15 years without such domination?' is incorrect.
The GOAT must be one of the best in each category, and a ranking must have a 'value' for each category.
So maybe the DOT ratings are a wonderful way to let us know a kind of domination of a player (maybe the more important), bit i think that it has to be integrated with other different kind of ratings.
What do you think about it?
Just to tell something about me: I'm italian, i'm debating this kind of questions for years in an italian forum, and so it's very intersting to be here. I subjectively think that Pancho Gonzales is maybe the GOAT, even if I am a Pete Sampras fan.
Regards,
Cristiano