What is the definition of G.O.A.T

merlinpinpin · Oct 9, 2012

Prisoner of Birth said:
Federer has 4 or more championships at 3 different Slams. He's got atleast 5 finals at every Slam. And Federer is more of a great on Clay than Nadal is on Hards. Not to mention, Federer is good on every surface. Nadal leaves much to be desired on indoor Hards. And let's not even go into consistency. It almost seems like I chose my points after Federer when it's actually the other way round. That's how much he exemplifies a GOAT.

Let's put it this way--Federer is so dominant that there *has* to be a surface GOAT (against whom he's got a bad match-up to boot) in front of him for this discussion to be taking place at all. Many people still give it to Federer over Laver despite the fact that he's had to contend with the clay GOAT during his whole career. Had there been a few years' difference between Federer's and Nadal's careers, it wouldn't even be close and Fed would blow Laver out of the water (and I'm taking Laver's pro career into account).

But yeah, the main points are obviously major titles (doesn't necessarily means GS titles only, depends on the times) on all surfaces and overall dominance. Federer tops both lists, so he's obviously a very strong contender for the title. I still prefer to use tiers, though, but to each his own.

Prisoner of Birth · Oct 9, 2012

merlinpinpin said:
Let's put it this way--Federer is so dominant that there *has* to be a surface GOAT (against whom he's got a bad match-up to boot) in front of him for this discussion to be taking place at all. Many people still give it to Federer over Laver despite the fact that he's had to contend with the clay GOAT during his whole career. Had there been a few years' difference between Federer's and Nadal's careers, it wouldn't even be close and Fed would blow Laver out of the water (and I'm taking Laver's pro career into account).

But yeah, the main points are obviously major titles (doesn't necessarily means GS titles only, depends on the times) on all surfaces and overall dominance. Federer tops both lists, so he's obviously a very strong contender for the title. I still prefer to use tiers, though, but to each his own.

THE surface GOAT. On Federer's worst surface. It's sort of interesting to see that Federer is the only guy not named Nadal to win the FO in 8 years. That could be 10 years in 2 years.

above bored · Oct 9, 2012

The Dark Knight said:
We all use the term GOAT however it has become painfully obvious that the term
Means different things to different people.

I'm calling on a bi partisan convention to try and come forward with some sort of unified definition of this very vague term.

If we can do that workout schewing the parameters towards ones favorite player then I think the debate will end once and for all......highly doubtful but at least it will be interesting to try.

Any takers?

If you think about it, it's even harder to define the GOAT along strict parameters in team sports like football and basketball where you have different positions and other enablers helping support your performance. In those sports people don't try to look for something akin to a neat mathematical formula or tight definition to determine who they think the GOAT is. They take into account all the information and then a popular consensus emerges.

With that in mind, I would define the GOAT to be the player in any given sport who most punters and pundits consider to be the greatest to have played the game, taking into account complete skillset, all the information and all the results. Very few sports have an undisputed GOAT, but a poplar consensus usually emerges. I think there is sufficient knowledge amongst punters and pundits for that to be fairly accurate. I would also say the stronger the consensus, the stronger the claim of GOAT.

kiki · Oct 9, 2012

SoBad said:
Safin is a democratically elected legislator who represents the will of his people.

Yes sure...in Putin Party

sdont · Oct 9, 2012

SoBad said:
It is also an animal when lamb is sold out at the grocery.

Safin
Kafelnikov
Sampras
Nadal

Isn't Nadal ahead of Safin now with 28 points? Time to update your file.

SoBad · Oct 9, 2012

sdont said:
Isn't Nadal ahead of Safin now with 28 points? Time to update your file.

I have five computers and three printers and cannot print out a single page. What is happening in the world?

SoBad · Oct 9, 2012

kiki said:
Yes sure...in Putin Party

You mean the widely popular political figure who brought a wealth of intelligence experience to the high public office?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OFOPd6pgjI

SoBad · Oct 9, 2012

tusharlovesrafa said:
it seems you like Marat!

I admire Mr. Safin for his contributions to the democratic process.

SoBad · Oct 9, 2012

Carsomyr said:
I don't think any GOAT candidacy can be taken seriously without considerations for clothing styles and love of the sea.

I can't print the file.

hoodjem · Oct 9, 2012

Number of years as world no. 1 should be part of the equation.

RF20Lennon · Oct 9, 2012

Lol this has now turned into a political debate

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 9, 2012

Evan77 said:
not his goat **** again please. don't you guys ever get tired? how many open threads we already have about goat stuff? like 100s.

Yeah, but we need threads like this, so the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) can post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!! You am accept it you troll!" and "Everyone be on steroids except Rogi!!!"

TMF · Oct 9, 2012

Prisoner of Birth said:
THE surface GOAT. On Federer's worst surface. It's sort of interesting to see that Federer is the only guy not named Nadal to win the FO in 8 years. That could be 10 years in 2 years.

merlinpinpin said:

Let's put it this way--Federer is so dominant that there *has* to be a surface GOAT (against whom he's got a bad match-up to boot) in front of him for this discussion to be taking place at all. Many people still give it to Federer over Laver despite the fact that he's had to contend with the clay GOAT during his whole career. Had there been a few years' difference between Federer's and Nadal's careers, it wouldn't even be close and Fed would blow Laver out of the water (and I'm taking Laver's pro career into account).

But yeah, the main points are obviously major titles (doesn't necessarily means GS titles only, depends on the times) on all surfaces and overall dominance. Federer tops both lists, so he's obviously a very strong contender for the title. I still prefer to use tiers, though, but to each his own.

Click to expand...

Fed is the greatest hard court and grass(tie with Pete) player of all time. Despite clay is his not his strongest surface, many people on average have him at #7 best of all time. He is the only player in history to win atleast 50 matches in each of the 4 slam events. There's no player that has the most complete resume like Federer. He's like the M. Jordan of the NBA, who is widely considered the greatest basketball player.

Gonzo_style · Oct 9, 2012

TMF said:
Fed is the greatest hard court and grass(tie with Pete) player of all time. Despite clay is his not his strongest surface, many people on average have him at #7 best of all time. He is the only player in history to win atleast 50 matches in each of the 4 slam events. There's no player that has the most complete resume like Federer. He's like the M. Jordan of the NBA, who is widely considered the greatest basketball player.

Yeah he is better than Jesus IMO

merlinpinpin · Oct 9, 2012

Gonzo_style said:
Yeah he is better than Jesus IMO

Well, he *did* walk on blue clay... :lol:

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 9, 2012

Yep, the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!!

cknobman · Oct 9, 2012

Websters dictionary defines GOAT as:

cknobman · Oct 9, 2012

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Yeah, but we need threads like this, so the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) can post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!! You am accept it you troll!" and "Everyone be on steroids except Rogi!!!"

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Yep, the Fed fanboys (and their 300 alternate accounts) post irrelevant lists, try to wish away the Grand Slam and cry "he be GOAT!!!

Did you somehow find that one post of the same thing was not enough to make your point?????

LOL

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 9, 2012

cknobman said:
Did you somehow find that one post of the same thing was not enough to make your point?????

LOL

It was enough to get you to comment on it, so the smart money says it worked.

LOL, indeed.

Prisoner of Birth · Oct 9, 2012

Prisoner of Birth said:
In the Open Era

1. Number of Grand Slams counts for most, provided they have reasonable success at all Slams.

2. A career Grand Slam or at least multiple Slam finals at Slams they've never won at.

3. Versatility. This is similar to point number 2 in a way but the Slams have covered just 2 or 3 surfaces over history. There are more surfaces around; indoor hards, carpet, different types of hard and clay courts. Should be good on ALL surfaces. No exceptions.

4. Quality of play. I look at players to see how good they were, I don't go "just by the numbers". I feel I can spot greatness when I see it but I could be wrong.

5. Peak of dominance. Should have at least one great high in their career. I can't call a player a GOAT even if they win 1 Slam an year for 30 years.

6. A relatively long and sustained Prime. I judge this by their level of play, not their success.

7. Consistency. They should very rarely go out early in tournaments, especially during their prime.

8. Longevity. Should be relevant for at least 10 years. They don't have to keep winning Slams all through but need to have a good showing throughout.

9. Fuel for not just the Slams but the smaller tournents as well. Everything counts, even if it's just a 500, to a certain extent.

10. Good, all-court play with no glaring weaknesses.

Anyway, does anybody have reason to argue against my criteria being good enough to judge GOAT-ness?

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 9, 2012

greatest of all t__ts?

Gonzo_style · Oct 9, 2012

Gorecki said:
greatest of all t__ts?

:lol::lol:

Gonzo_style · Oct 9, 2012

Prisoner of Birth said:
Anyway, does anybody have reason to argue against my criteria being good enough to judge GOAT-ness?

What about true Grand Slam? You miss that!

Prisoner of Birth · Oct 9, 2012

Gonzo_style said:
What about true Grand Slam? You miss that!

It's a great achievement, probably the hardest, but I don't think it necessarily says too much about the greatness of a player that the other points don't as far as I'm concerned.

sdont · Oct 9, 2012

SoBad said:
I have five computers and three printers and cannot print out a single page. What is happening in the world?

People are lazy. The end is nigh.

DolgoSantoro · Oct 9, 2012

dangalak said:
Lemme guess, THUNDERVOLLEY making a ridiculous diatribe about how Laver is the GOAT since he won the Grand Slam against joke fields with mostly grass surfaces. :lol: All that, even though he is far behind in overall slam titles.

The Former Pro Player section has issued a bounty on your head, just FYI

Prisoner of Birth said:
In the Open Era

1. Number of Grand Slams counts for most, provided they have reasonable success at all Slams.

2. A career Grand Slam or at least multiple Slam finals at Slams they've never won at.

3. Versatility. This is similar to point number 2 in a way but the Slams have covered just 2 or 3 surfaces over history. There are more surfaces around; indoor hards, carpet, different types of hard and clay courts. Should be good on ALL surfaces. No exceptions.

4. Quality of play. I look at players to see how good they were, I don't go "just by the numbers". I feel I can spot greatness when I see it but I could be wrong.

5. Peak of dominance. Should have at least one great high in their career. I can't call a player a GOAT even if they win 1 Slam an year for 30 years.

6. A relatively long and sustained Prime. I judge this by their level of play, not their success.

7. Consistency. They should very rarely go out early in tournaments, especially during their prime.

8. Longevity. Should be relevant for at least 10 years. They don't have to keep winning Slams all through but need to have a good showing throughout.

9. Fuel for not just the Slams but the smaller tournents as well. Everything counts, even if it's just a 500, to a certain extent.

10. Good, all-court play with no glaring weaknesses.

I pretty much agree with this

zam88 · Oct 9, 2012

My definition of GOAT is if we had a hypothetical best of 99 amongst every player in his prime across multiple surfaces, who would end up with the most wins.

I can't imagine any scenario where Federer doesn't beat almost every player.

And if somehow he lost the best of 99 to Nadal, Nadal would lose his best of 99 to a few other players and thus Federer would still have the most wins.

Nadal would have a lot more 63-36 total wins over opponents, whereas Federer would have more 80-20, 90-10 type of results.

But if you don't like that idea, i'll just go with the most accomplished player... and in the men's game that's Feds.

Unfortunately it seems like the real records only go back about 20ish years.... I mean how can you compare Feds 17 slams to Borg's 11 when Borg only played 3 events per year (25% less opportunity) and didn't have the benefits of modern training to keep him in the game until 30 (way less opportunity).

Here's what I do think though... I think Fed's records hold up a LONG DAMN time. Some of them I doubt get ever matched (23 consecutive semis) or weeks at #1.

Gonzo_style · Oct 9, 2012

Prisoner of Birth said:
It's a great achievement, probably the hardest, but I don't think it necessarily says too much about the greatness of a player that the other points don't as far as I'm concerned.

Not for "GOAT"!

RogerRacket111 · Oct 9, 2012

Goat Bahhhhh

Cow Moooo

Prisoner of Birth · Oct 9, 2012

Gonzo_style said:
Not for "GOAT"!

Let's say I agree with you that Laver is the GOAT. You're saying the Grand Slam was easy for him?

SoBad · Oct 9, 2012

sdont said:
People are lazy. The end is nigh.

Everyone is lazy and greedy, that's the problem. Everyone wants to get off the goat and straight into a 328i...

smoledman · Oct 9, 2012

401058_3091065401144_1399263103_33212689_1394224307_n-500x331.jpg

SoBad · Oct 9, 2012

jokinla · Oct 9, 2012

Roger Federer

smoledman · Oct 9, 2012

Roger Goaterer.

Deleted member 21996 · Oct 10, 2012

Capra aegagrus hircus

No1e · Oct 10, 2012

But I believe Djokovic will take over in five years.

sdont · Oct 10, 2012

SoBad said:
Everyone is lazy and greedy, that's the problem. Everyone wants to get off the goat and straight into a 328i...

Do you agree that Safin was lazy and could have won more if he had worked hard?

Is laziness a GOAT attribute?

VPhuc tennis fan · Oct 10, 2012

sdont said:
Do you agree that Safin was lazy and could have won more if he had worked hard?

Is laziness a GOAT attribute?

No, it's a SHEEP attribute. Just kidding!
6 pages in this thread and seems to go strong. Somebody must be rubbing his hands and LOL.

VPhuc tennis fan · Oct 10, 2012

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Meanwhile, Federer never displayed concentrated domninace, as he failed to win the GS, and the one time he squeezed out a FO win, Nadal (the true master of that surface) was not there. That tells history all that is required to know he was not a complete player,and never had the skills to truly beat his competition (thin as it was for the bulk of his majors-winning period).

Not sure why you held the FO09 title Fed won in contempt. Nadal, the true master, wasn't there. Why? Let me guess, he got kicked by Soderling, didn't he? Now that had nothing to do with Fed. Fed did his part which was to make it to the final. Rafa didn't do his homework, did he?
You're gonna say, "Well, if Rafa had been there, he would have crushed Fed". Haa... well, he was NOT. So whoever won that day got to keep the trophy, no? Why the contempt? Otherwise, we can go back to each GS and say, "What if..." At that rate, no player can have one single title, no?

merlinpinpin · Oct 10, 2012

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Meanwhile, Federer never displayed concentrated domninace in the single season/calendar year, as he failed to win the GS. Further, the one time he squeezed out a FO win, Nadal (the true master of that surface) was not there.

He was, actually. Maybe you should brush up your tennis knowledge, but Nadal was definitely there, seeded #1, at FO 2009. You can find the draw here, although I really think that someone with your (supposedly) superior tennis knowledge should have known that small "detail":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles

tudwell · Oct 10, 2012

To me, the GOAT debate is about determining the most impressive resume of the following qualities (relatively in order of importance):

1. Dominance (including depth of dominance and length of dominance)
2. Consistency (including variety on different surfaces, avoiding early-round losses, etc.)
3. Longevity

There are a handful of people who were quite dominant for a sustained period of time: Laver, Tilden, Federer, Budge, Gonzales, H.L. Doherty, Sampras, Rosewall, and Borg. That's about my order of them, but any single one of them has quite a case to be made on his behalf.

rofl_copter3 · Oct 10, 2012

OK so say a player is not the greatest on any single surface but top 10 of all time on all of them, does that weigh into the argument?

Nadal is probably the greatest clay courter of all time, but not in the top 15 on hard courts and probably just a bit ahead of that on the grass...

Federer is not probably the greatest ever on any particular surface but is in the top 10 on all three and in the top 5 on two of them...

Laver only truly great on grass tho he did win some on clay and Mac and Sampras couldn't do the clay thing too well...

Borg is honestly the only other person I truly believe had the consistency across all surfaces and honestly I would say the argument should be between Borg and Federer

TMF · Oct 10, 2012

rofl_copter3 said:
OK so say a player is not the greatest on any single surface but top 10 of all time on all of them, does that weigh into the argument?

Nadal is probably the greatest clay courter of all time, but not in the top 15 on hard courts and probably just a bit ahead of that on the grass...

Federer is not probably the greatest ever on any particular surface but is in the top 10 on all three and in the top 5 on two of them...

Laver only truly great on grass tho he did win some on clay and Mac and Sampras couldn't do the clay thing too well...

Borg is honestly the only other person I truly believe had the consistency across all surfaces and honestly I would say the argument should be between Borg and Federer

If it's about consistency playing at high level on all surfaces, then it's Federer.

(grass)Wimbledon: 8 finals
(hard court)US Open: 6 finals
(hard court)AO: 5 finals
(clay)RG: 5 finals
(indoor)WTF: 7 finals

Gonzo_style · Oct 10, 2012

TMF said:
If it's about consistency playing at high level on all surfaces, then it's Federer.

Not Rosewall?

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 10, 2012

VPhuc tennis fan said:
Not sure why you held the FO09 title Fed won in contempt. Nadal, the true master, wasn't there. Why? Let me guess, he got kicked by Soderling, didn't he? Now that had nothing to do with Fed.

It means for all of the overrating of Federer's majors record (and some even go as far as to lift FO finals runner-up finishes as some sort of creit, when it means nothing in terms of majors dominance), Federer could win his one and only FO against someone who was NOT the generation's greatest FO champion. There's no tapdancing around Federer's luck in that situation.

To the original point, even at his so-called "prime," a period his cheerleaders claim is beyond anythig seen before--they have no explanation for his inability to win the Grand Slam. None--yet they want to say he's the greatest sans a greatest=level performance.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 10, 2012

merlinpinpin said:
He was, actually.

"Not there" means the finals, kid.

Prisoner of Birth · Oct 10, 2012

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
"Not there" means the finals, kid.

So it's Federer's fault Nadal couldn't make it past the 4th round. Sound logic there. Federer was more deserving of the French Open that year than anybody else, including and especially Nadal, who was blown off the court by Soderling who got straight-setted by Federer. Suck it up and face the music. Federer won the French Open fair and square.

kiki · Oct 10, 2012

TMF said:
If it's about consistency playing at high level on all surfaces, then it's Federer.

(grass)Wimbledon: 8 finals
(hard court)US Open: 6 finals
(hard court)AO: 5 finals
(clay)RG: 5 finals
(indoor)WTF: 7 finals

At first sight, it looks like.

I don´t want to take anything of Federer, nobody gave him those titles for free but...there are so many buts in his career.

1/weak era: meaning we should weighten his titles, and we need to establish a ponderated rating like: 2000´s titles should be divided by 2,5 to equalize with 1970´s or 1980´s.
2/owned by Nadal when matters
3/Rosewall and Laver won many pro slams, that being the true slams all across the 1960´s.

In a way, while I think Fed is a better player ( I saw both and Roger is definitely better), his career looks a better version of Roy Emerson...

Prisoner of Birth · Oct 10, 2012

kiki said:
At first sight, it looks like.

I don´t want to take anything of Federer, nobody gave him those titles for free but...there are so many buts in his career.

1/weak era: meaning we should weighten his titles, and we need to establish a ponderated rating like: 2000´s titles should be divided by 2,5 to equalize with 1970´s or 1980´s.
2/owned by Nadal when matters
3/Rosewall and Laver won many pro slams, that being the true slams all across the 1960´s.

In a way, while I think Fed is a better player ( I saw both and Roger is definitely better), his career looks a better version of Roy Emerson...

How is it a "Weak Era"? I could just as easily say Laver and Sampras played in equally weak eras. There's no way to substantiate it.

What is the definition of G.O.A.T

Hall of Fame

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Legend

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Banned

Legend

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads