Bud Collins and Tony Trabert, among some other experts, think so, that Laver is the greatest player because he won two Grand Slams, which they reckon is the ultimate world record in tennis. On the end of the day, after looking at all dates and stats and weighing this and that, and putting all things into historical perspective, and leaving out all wouldas and couldas, the Grand Slam is a decisive achievement, which will be still honoured in 50 years from now.
GOAT= Slams Total ONLY?
- Thread starter hoodjem
- Start date
Phoenix, If at 64 I am a boy, which status of age do you have at 30? ;-)
Last edited:
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Except if Djokovic, or someone else, do it again. The total number of major won is similarly a unique achievement, until someone beat it. But what really matter is that, neither the Grand Slam nor the total number of Slam should be used as the sole measure of greatness. That's what casual fan do, because it's too complicated to look further. But self proclaimed tennis expert like us can use a more complicated model.
"Best" is subjective, so it is about the subjective opinion of the majority.
Number of slams and tour finals won, time spent at #1, etc. are all variables affecting the public opinion. Right now there is no real debate (outside of ****ism on specialized forums) on who tennis GOAT is.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I am no fanboy that's for sure.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, definitely.
The deeper our knowledge, the more involved, subtle, and sophisticated becomes the list of measures and the factoring of each.
But aren't the real experts like them not right? Isn't at the end of the day the simple model the decisive? Are these complicated and subtle lists of measure important in the end of it all, when it comes to a final judgement? The Grand Slam isn't a pure number, its a myth, a simple, elegant, and classic formula of greatness.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Well, I would certainly say it ranks a lot higher than a mere total of four slams.
I think it does have a tradition and history, therefore we can call it "a simple, elegant, and classic measure of greatness."
It kind of like calling Wimbledon The Championship.
Fintft
G.O.A.T.
Yeah and i.e. to me Ilie Nastase is one of the greatest ever, mainly based on talent.
hoodjem, I also agree with urban.
AngieB, Why strange? The amount of big SFs reached is actually a measure for greatness, of course together with other feats. Federer is highly ranked also for his many big SFs. Also Rosewall must be mentioned as he reached 52 big SFs if we include the pro majors.
Fintft, I agree. Players like Nastase, Santana, McEnroe, Segura, Mecir, Hoad and last but not least Laver and Rosewall should be considered as all-time greats because of their tremendous talent.
AngieB
Banned
Hi, BobbyOne,
I believe Ken Rosewall and Roger Federer's are greats without mention of their semifinal appearances. Of course, semifinal appearances are something to talk about in terms of consistency at the top, but in terms of "greatest" discussion, I feel winning the best and biggest tournaments of that time period should be illuminated.
I think we have enough empirical data available with total tournaments won, grand slam titles won, "pro" major wins, weeks and/or years at number one, Davis Cup wins, Olympic Gold, etc, etc. without having to include semifinal appearances.
At what point and when was semifinal information included on the menu at the table of GOAT discussion? At a loss here.
Are we trying to reinvent the wheel including semifinal appearances? Isn't there already a direct corrolation between those who have won the most grand slam or major events and those who have made it to the most semifinals? Is there a historical example of a player who made it tons of semifinals and didn't win a large number of grand slam or major events?
As fans and observers of the sport, are we weakening the GOAT category by including yet another layered tier of "almost great" player?
My intent is not to be disrespectful to anyone, but hoping someone can help me understand how semifinal appearance discussion help the GOAT debate.
AngieB
borg number one
Legend
I agree with you and Urban. It's a special achievement in tennis. I like to refer to it as the "Grand Slam", while referring to the four tournaments that comprise it as "majors". It's still considered to be a ultimate prize in tennis because partly I think that we humans do like round numbers and some order/symmetry. There's something very tidy about winning all four majors in a year to run the table with your opponents. Why the Tour and the AO didn't factor in more during those lean years is a question, but I'm glad that the AO is now a really great major.
Last edited:
Thanks, AngieB,
As far as I know counting of major SFs reached was an important measure stick since a long time.
Jimmy Connors is a player who did not win too many majors but was awesome with his 31 SFs reached. This feat is one of the reasons for his including in the list of the all-time greats.
Consistency is an important criterion.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I do not disagree with Urban.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The Grand Slam is the ultimate achievement. IMO, it trumps anything else, but not everything else.
But I believe that if you pinned Trabert and Collins down and asked them if a player wins only the Grand Slam and nothing else, then would that player be the GOAT? They would answer 'no'.
IMO, Laver's claim certainly starts with his two (or three) Grand Slams, but it is the totality of his career that is most convincing. Others also have great careers, but having these Grand Slams is the ultimate, separating factor.
hoodjem, I had meant I agree with both of you! English language difficult language ;-)
Last edited:
AngieB
Banned
It just feels odd to reward major semifinal appearances in regards to GOAT discussion when actual tournament wins are a more definitive measure.
The only time I recall tennis analysts signify the importance of major semifinal appearances was either in context of a quarterfinal or semifinal match in progress. Certainly they were using it in historical context of possible outcomes, but analysts rarely discuss major semifinal appearances during major finals, generally only finals appearances and results.
But to that end, Jimmy Connors is certainly a prime example where semifinal appearance discussion favors him historically. Given his record tournament wins, but unexpected less grand slam wins, it speaks to his unique ability to penetrate a draw consistently and adds to his GOAT list aura. Agreed.
AngieB
AngieB, Federer's impressive streak of big SFs reached in a row was often mentioned.
I rate 3 (or at the most 4) big SFs about equal to one major won without other top places.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, English difficult language. ;-)
Auf Deutsche is confusing (to think in), with the verb at the end.
Last edited:
hoodjem, Du hast recht (you are right).
kiki
Banned
as AngieB pulled it, Connors was a great semifinal force, and it would be unthinkable to talk about the Borg and mc enroe era without him at their level.
He was so consistent that , when he lost to unheralded french roger Vasselyn at the fourth round of the 1983 Roland Garros tournament, i thought the world was ending...
He was so consistent that , when he lost to unheralded french roger Vasselyn at the fourth round of the 1983 Roland Garros tournament, i thought the world was ending...
Season end finals
I think you would also agree that Season end finals count. A large part of the Nastase career achievement is that he made the final match in 5 Masters Cups in a row, in the 1970's, winning 4 of the them.
I think you would also agree that Season end finals count. A large part of the Nastase career achievement is that he made the final match in 5 Masters Cups in a row, in the 1970's, winning 4 of the them.
kiki
Banned
Not to mention WCT finals with all matches best of five and direct elimination
kiki
Banned
AMOF WCT Finals was played like a traditional major
Difference: reductioned draft
And no trash match since it was a superchallenge of the world's best
Masters had many RR matches with a weird tanking record like Lendl against Connors in 80
Mc Enroe against Teltscher in 81 and Borg the tanking king who threw away 74 and 77 matches against Vilas and his 1980 match vs Gene Mayer
Difference: reductioned draft
And no trash match since it was a superchallenge of the world's best
Masters had many RR matches with a weird tanking record like Lendl against Connors in 80
Mc Enroe against Teltscher in 81 and Borg the tanking king who threw away 74 and 77 matches against Vilas and his 1980 match vs Gene Mayer
M
monfed
Guest
For me Slam count, slam distribution, weeks spent at #1 and career grand slam are the most important criteria,atleast statistically. Though I consider Fed the GOAT more for the way he plays the game and the way he represents the sport. The media respond favourably to him as well since he speaks so many different languages. The intangibles are heavily in Fed's favour more than any other past great imo.
kiki
Banned
He is more handsome than Laver¡¡¡¡
Nah, I think Laver is better looking but I would take Roger's height.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
His moustache alone won five slams.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Laver has more freckles than Fed and Newk (and his moustache) put together.
The Rocket is the GOAT of freckles.
RF20Lennon
Legend
See, slam total = consistency. Id rather win one slam for 10 years then 8 slams in 2 years (and retiring). Reason being that my game is consistent and im able to put myself above the rest of the field at least one big event each year. CYGS is AMAZING!! truly! but the thing is...it just shows short bursts. Tennis is a marathon and you have to save energy and form throughout your career. But yeah just my opinion. Which is why i rate Fed over Laver and (CYGS was done when 3 of the 4 slam surfaces were the same).
kiki
Banned
The one who is certainly excluded is Roche
When WCT launched its project tour in 68 consisting of 8 players the press named it " The Handsome seven...and Tony Roche"
The other seven being Newk,Bucholz,Drisdale,Pilic,Barthes,Taylor and Denis Ralston
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Interesting. But I guess I have a different opinion. Winning the Grand Slam is not just a short burst--it is a year-long burst of supreme effort with zero allowance for failure: one slip and you are out. Start over next year when the odds are the same.
I would rank a player with two CYGS much higher than another player with 10 slams over 10 years. I believe the former player's achievement manifests a higher peak level, greater domination, and a greater consistency albeit over a shorter period of time.
We could hypothesize that the latter player was inconsistent outside of the slam wins, and maybe the 10 slams were all on one surface, such that the 10-slam winner was a particular surface specialist and little else.
Last edited:
If there were a constantly rolling ranking system in those days before the invention of the ATP computer in late 1973, Laver would probably have been Nr. 1 for the last time in May 1972. In the WCT ranking 1971/72 they gave points for the last 10 WCT events in 1971 and the first 10 in 1972. Before the Dallas final in May 1972, Laver was the far away leader of the WCT race with 8 tournament wins and over 120 points. In the ATP computer ranking 1974, Laver was still 3rd for while, and at the end of the year still Nr. 4, the oldest with such a high computer ranking at years end.
