Jeffrey573639
Semi-Pro
Let's clarify- it's not a who is the GOAT thread (though someone should make one since we've almost never had them before). But basically do you think it's a debate worth having?
Do you care about the GOAT debate?
- Thread starter Jeffrey573639
- Start date
No.
Fans have their favourite and will generally argue for that player.
Like the poll says, too many variables. Federer is best in regards to Grand Slams but has losing record to Nadal, does that make Nadal greatest? You can go round in circles and start to include other players and argue for them.
Fans have their favourite and will generally argue for that player.
Like the poll says, too many variables. Federer is best in regards to Grand Slams but has losing record to Nadal, does that make Nadal greatest? You can go round in circles and start to include other players and argue for them.
rainingaces
Legend
If it keeps the stupid people on the forum entertained its just fine by me.
fed_is_GOD
Professional
Sampras????? you must be reeaally high..
axel89
Banned
if anyone its you who is high federer is not god lol
iradical18
Professional
I suppose it can be entertaining from time to time. Personally I've learned a lot about champions of the past (Hoad, Gonzales, Budge, Tilden) by reading some of the more informed posts in some of the debates. If you're goal in a debate is to try and come to a conclusion though then I definitely thing it's pointless.
Apun94
Hall of Fame
LOL, True True
DropShotArtist
Banned
LOL, not true not true
forzamilan90
Legend
My opinion on this is sports is competition and winning and records. If we can't compare and argue who is the best, there's something missing from the soul of sports. It's the principle of it, I'm better than you are (whether it'd be playing on the street back in the day as a kid and having bragging rights over your friends, or adult titles and records achieved). I feel of all the major sports, this is the one sport where so many fans are "shying away" from getting into the topic of GOAT. Obvs there's many that do get involved in that (myself including). GOAT is essential to any sport, period. Look at how basketball fans revere MJ, it's the very principle of the contemporary game he's the standard, the revered figure. In football you got Pele/Maradona, now you got young Messi shaking up the mix. Etc.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Ha,ha,ha.................that poster is not high. An idiot he is, but not high:twisted:
6-1 6-3 6-0
Banned
The 'GOAT' debate was invented by Talk Tennis. As a result, the 'GOAT' debate is senseless and meaningless, since anything produced by posters on Talk Tennis tends to be garbage. I've never seen a more paranoid, obsessive internet forum in world history. The driving force behind this nonsensical 'GOAT' debate is Rafael Nadal (he tends to be the driving force in tennis, PERIOD), and due to the beatings he gave federer in the past (and will continue to routinely give federer), he is the most talked-about player in the debate. 
tacou
G.O.A.T.
There is no way to agree on it so it is pointless.
Time and tennis continuously move forward, so even if we decided on a current GOAT there would be a new one in 50-100 years, making it more pointless.
Roger Federer has the most majors and for me that makes him the greatest of all time, but there are so many other factors to consider and I think 2-3 other players have a claim to the crown.
Time and tennis continuously move forward, so even if we decided on a current GOAT there would be a new one in 50-100 years, making it more pointless.
Roger Federer has the most majors and for me that makes him the greatest of all time, but there are so many other factors to consider and I think 2-3 other players have a claim to the crown.
Bryan Swartz
Hall of Fame
Not at all. First of all you're incorrect about MJ, there are quite a few people who don't consider him the best ever. But aside from that, GOAT is an unknowable thing. You can reasonably debate who is best at a given time, but not who is best from a different era, because too much has changed in the competitive environment. It is completely unknowable how players would react to playing in a different era. It's an elaborate game of chasing your tail, and is a completely fruitless exercise.
Just appreciate the great ones for what they do in their time and let it rest.
kiki
Banned
yes, almost all greats have molded their game into Laver´s.That says it all.
ark_28
Legend
Laver played in a generation where 3 majors were on grass! The sport didn't have the same athletic requirements as it did now!
He faced a bunch of old farts who had no video analysis to figure out his weaknesses! Agreed he was a great player but no way would have won the Grand Slam in this era! The onus is on him in that debate!
OddJack
G.O.A.T.
I guess I didnt say it right.
I meant to say Laver and Borg have said who the greatest is , Federer.
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
It can be interesting but comparing players from different eras is just impossible.
Paul Murphy
Hall of Fame
But where would this site and others be without it?
Quieter I suspect.
Quieter I suspect.
The 'GOAT' debate was invented by Talk Tennis. As a result, the 'GOAT' debate is senseless and meaningless, since anything produced by posters on Talk Tennis tends to be garbage. I've never seen a more paranoid, obsessive internet forum in world history. The driving force behind this nonsensical 'GOAT' debate is Rafael Nadal (he tends to be the driving force in tennis, PERIOD), and due to the beatings he gave federer in the past (and will continue to routinely give federer), he is the most talked-about player in the debate.
You mean rafael nadal? Rafael Nadal is not correct.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Right, here's Laver at the age of 37-38 against one of the best athletes tennis has ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk
Insane athletic requirements that saw athletic studs like Almagro and Janko make top 10 and a 35 year old Haas be ranked #17.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Nice video. Love to see old school tennis in HQ. Borg was a speed demon.
However, I still laugh at those Laver fanboys and their nostalgic recollections of Laver's "massive left forearm". Remember, legend has it that Laver's gigantic forearm was thicker than the average man's leg. :lol:
Last edited:
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
70's and early 80's tennis is fun to watch, but you could give Laver or Borg any racquet they wanted and they would be blown off the court by today's top players. It wouldn't even be fair. The game evolves; players evolve. It's the way of the world.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Not just his speed, his footwork is also amazing to me and Laver's court coverage is not too shabby for a guy who's in his late 30s.
LOL I remember that (I almost fell off a chair laughing when I read it), I still don't think most of them even realize that a guy they love to dump on- Roddick has a bigger forearm than Laver ever did.
That said, game always evolves crowd that think Laver would be the equivalent of Rochus today and Sampras wouldn't be top 10 annoys me just as much.
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
Let's also not forget that Laver was the absolute definition of class (really his picture should be next to the word in every single dictionary), never setting a foot wrong, never to become flustered or frustrated. He was basically the Mother Teresa of tennis. The players of this generation hold no class whatsoever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RiSakiF4jzk#t=180s
zagor
Bionic Poster
Right, so where's the limit to this evolution? Will players be 8 foot tall mutants that serve 300 km/h and hit 200 km/h in a few decades?
The game changes, new trends emerge (as a consequence of various things) but whether it evolves it's open to a debate, if it did (especially to a degree people claim it does) than we wouldn't see way past their prime champions time and again still do so well and give the new guard a run for their money (no, I don't believe Laver, Lendl, Agassi and Fed are/were playing their best in their 30s).
Your point about racquets, I have little doubt if Borg and Laver grew up with modern sticks they'd still be all time great in modern era (especially Borg would have probably thrived in current conditions) but besides that, who know how well would the current best players play with wood? It goes both ways.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I agree, I'm sure he had more of such (and worse) moments but there's wasn't anywhere near as coverage as there is today.
I have to say, Laver does strike me as a very classy guy but that's just the impression I get from his interviews over the years.
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
I agree, I'm sure he had more of such (and worse) moments but there's wasn't anywhere near as coverage as there is today.
I have to say, Laver does strike me as a very classy guy but that's just the impression I get from his interviews over the years.
And I completely I agree with you. I'm sure he was/is a great and classy (whatever that means on these boards lol) guy, but in the end he is human. So many of the old timers on here continue to badger newer fans of the game and their opinions by saying how they are biased, whereas it's equally true for the old timers!
I mean we have Laver's forearm bigger than most pros legs, 80 mph slices and who knows what else :lol:
Fact is as you said, Laver's every word wasn't available on the internet to be dissected by everyone in whatever way they please. I'm sure he had his fair share of bad moments, but that's OK! These guys aren't supposed to be saints
kiki
Banned
it was certainly bigger than many posters brains...
kiki
Banned
Touche.That´s the point.
It is interesting every now and then, but people are far too obsessed with it and comparing and contrasting how many trophies each player has, and whether or not they have asterisks next to them.
If there was a means of doing so, I'd block every post that included the number 17 or the > < symbols. It's more annoying when it's brought up during a discussion of a specific match and a fan simply brings up their favourite player's legacy for the sake of bragging rights, normally because their favourite player played crap or did something idiotic.
If there was a means of doing so, I'd block every post that included the number 17 or the > < symbols. It's more annoying when it's brought up during a discussion of a specific match and a fan simply brings up their favourite player's legacy for the sake of bragging rights, normally because their favourite player played crap or did something idiotic.
PhrygianDominant
Hall of Fame
I think the debate exists to be debated. It has little to no bearing on my enjoyment of the game, because my enjoyment of the game and discussions thereof is not wrapped up in one player or his standing and/or achievements.
Besides Roger Federer is the GOAT. Until somebody else wins more majors while having won all of them, then that person will be the GOAT. It's simple math.
Besides Roger Federer is the GOAT. Until somebody else wins more majors while having won all of them, then that person will be the GOAT. It's simple math.
The-Champ
Legend
forzamilan90
Legend
That was Rosewall, not Laver. Don't mix things up
and also it was 100 mph, not 80
The-Champ
Legend
No, Tilden hit a 100 mph dropshot. Rosewall's backhand slice was 80 mph.
here's the source:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6112388&postcount=7
90's Clay
Banned
Its circular arguing and reasoning at the end of the day with no "clear cut winner" because quite frankly its impossible to compare eras (Some tournaments had lesser prestige then they do now, GOAT candidates were banned from playing the majors for many years etc), racket technology and court surfaces have change throughout the decades
Tennis is a bit different from other sports because there is no hands down dominant GOAT that dominated to the degree regardless of eras that can put that player out in front.
At the end of the day, Rosewall, Pancho, Laver, Federer all have some legit claims to GOAT status. None of the them have hands down claims to GOAT status but if I had choose and put them in order it would go like:
1. Laver
2. Pancho
3. Rosewall
4. Federer
5. Sampras
But thats just my opinion. And thats all there is at the end of the day in this sport, opinions. No hand down FACT to prove.
There isn't a hands down GOAT in this sport like this with Phelps in Swimming, Jordan in Basketball, Gretzky in hockey etc.
Tennis is a bit different from other sports because there is no hands down dominant GOAT that dominated to the degree regardless of eras that can put that player out in front.
At the end of the day, Rosewall, Pancho, Laver, Federer all have some legit claims to GOAT status. None of the them have hands down claims to GOAT status but if I had choose and put them in order it would go like:
1. Laver
2. Pancho
3. Rosewall
4. Federer
5. Sampras
But thats just my opinion. And thats all there is at the end of the day in this sport, opinions. No hand down FACT to prove.
There isn't a hands down GOAT in this sport like this with Phelps in Swimming, Jordan in Basketball, Gretzky in hockey etc.
Do I care? Not so much.
Do I enjoy the debate and discussion about it? Absolutely. I think it is fun to try to compare players from different eras (in any sport), make a case for someone and try to determine who the best is.
With tennis, I limit it to the open era, because it is virtually impossible to discuss the guys prior to that. Laver didn't get to play slams for more than half a decade. There's no way to know what he'd have done, but it's as certain as one can be that he'd have won multiple slams during that span.
Do I enjoy the debate and discussion about it? Absolutely. I think it is fun to try to compare players from different eras (in any sport), make a case for someone and try to determine who the best is.
With tennis, I limit it to the open era, because it is virtually impossible to discuss the guys prior to that. Laver didn't get to play slams for more than half a decade. There's no way to know what he'd have done, but it's as certain as one can be that he'd have won multiple slams during that span.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Very well said. Excellent post all around.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
that's hypocritical and arrogant bullsh!t........nadal should be the greatest only because he has a great h2h against fediva.......his numerous incredible unmatched stand-alone records in history of the sport are all irrelevant.......
wow, thanks for letting us know the true criterion for GOAT.......
RF20Lennon
Legend
yeah exactly! i mean god is good but he is no federer.
But on topic, it is worth debating but at the same time there are too many variables. But what we have to realise is that no single player can define a sport. The sport always wins, no player can be above the sport.
Similar threads
