The factors that weigh in the GOAT debate.

KG1965 · Jan 27, 2019

Leaving aside the Pre-Open period and focusing only on the Open Era it is easy to see that despite the incredible longevity of Roger, the distance that separates Federer from Nadal and Djokovic is more and more thin.

If only the slams are counted (as do the majority of fans and media), the two pursuers are approaching with great strides.
Also the other big titles Novak and Rafa are even closer.

But the feeling is that Federer is much more distant.

This difference is not therefore in the titles but in other:
1) the style of the game ... where Federer is seen by almost all the media and fans as another category;
2) Federer's contribution to tennis: Federer is an icon while Nadal and especially Djokovic are not perceived as icons;
3) Federer's records, in this category Fedr is almost always clearly ahead of the two antagonists (who have few records);
4 ) the perception of domination: in this case Nadal is very underneath, because he has never in fact dominated a period, but Nole has an excellent period of domination.
I will have the 5 years of Federer are generally seen as more dominant.

These 4 points where the two rivals are going around. Above all Djokovic does not have many weapons.

GabeT · Jan 27, 2019

The “feeling” that Fed is much more distant is what’s called a lagging indicator, based mainly on old data. if Nole goes on a tear, say he has a three slam season in 2019, watch how fast the “feelings” change.

3lite · Jan 27, 2019

OP sounds a bit in denial.

Let's approach his discussion more objectively:

1. Titles (GS's, M1000's, YEC's, etc.)
2. H2H

zathomas1930 · Jan 30, 2019

KG1965 said:
Leaving aside the Pre-Open period and focusing only on the Open Era it is easy to see that despite the incredible longevity of Roger, the distance that separates Federer from Nadal and Djokovic is more and more thin.

If only the slams are counted (as do the majority of fans and media), the two pursuers are approaching with great strides.
Also the other big titles Novak and Rafa are even closer.

But the feeling is that Federer is much more distant.

This difference is not therefore in the titles but in other:
1) the style of the game ... where Federer is seen by almost all the media and fans as another category;
2) Federer's contribution to tennis: Federer is an icon while Nadal and especially Djokovic are not perceived as icons;
3) Federer's records, in this category Fedr is almost always clearly ahead of the two antagonists (who have few records);
4 ) the perception of domination: in this case Nadal is very underneath, because he has never in fact dominated a period, but Nole has an excellent period of domination.
I will have the 5 years of Federer are generally seen as more dominant.

These 4 points where the two rivals are going around. Above all Djokovic does not have many weapons.

This is why I don't take the majority of tennis fans, who has this same opinion, seriously.
Roger's game being more stylish, pretty or unique doesn't make his case better for the GOAT debate.
All three players have made innumerable contributions to the sport of tennis. Again - that does not help Roger's case for the GOAT title
Records - AHHH! Something that actually does help Roger's case - Grand Slams, Master 1000 titles, WTF titles, etc. Okay, now WE"RE TALKING!
Perception of dominance - Roger's dominance period was very impressive, but I don't think he would have had the same period of dominance with a prime Joker/Rafa instead of Roddick, Safin, etc

TMF · Jan 30, 2019

3lite said:
OP sounds a bit in denial.

Let's approach his discussion more objectively:

1. Titles (GS's, M1000's, YEC's, etc.)
2. H2H

H2H is not the criteria in evaluation GOAT.

Objectively, this is the most fair list.

PLAYER CRITERIA
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

zvelf · Jan 30, 2019

1. Playing pretty is fine, but ultimately is minor criteria in looking at GOAT.
2. Perception is very tenuous. What people think a decade from now or two or three decades from now is way beyond our ken. This is not at all a reliable indicator for GOAT.
3. Djokovic and Nadal have plenty of records that Roger doesn’t, notably a non-calendar year grand slam and being the most dominant clay courter in the history of tennis, and both also have more Masters. They haven't surpassed him in the records department, but they could.
4. Weeks at #1 will ultimately determine this one. Djokovic may or may not break Federer’s very impressive record here, but it’s definitely within the realm of possibility.

GabeT · Jan 30, 2019

TMF said:
H2H is not the criteria in evaluation GOAT.

Objectively, this is the most fair list.

PLAYER CRITERIA
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

This is missing non slam Tournaments and distribution of slams. I don’t think Davis Cup makes any difference and there are so many possible streaks one can come up with for any GOAT contender it would be almost imposible to agree which is most relevant. For example, for me, if we are going to focus on streaks, the most important Is winning 4 slams in a row. But others may have a different view.

itrium84 · Jan 30, 2019

KG1965 said:
Leaving aside the Pre-Open period and focusing only on the Open Era it is easy to see that despite the incredible longevity of Roger, the distance that separates Federer from Nadal and Djokovic is more and more thin.

If only the slams are counted (as do the majority of fans and media), the two pursuers are approaching with great strides.
Also the other big titles Novak and Rafa are even closer.

But the feeling is that Federer is much more distant.

This difference is not therefore in the titles but in other:
1) the style of the game ... where Federer is seen by almost all the media and fans as another category;
2) Federer's contribution to tennis: Federer is an icon while Nadal and especially Djokovic are not perceived as icons;
3) Federer's records, in this category Fedr is almost always clearly ahead of the two antagonists (who have few records);
4 ) the perception of domination: in this case Nadal is very underneath, because he has never in fact dominated a period, but Nole has an excellent period of domination.
I will have the 5 years of Federer are generally seen as more dominant.

These 4 points where the two rivals are going around. Above all Djokovic does not have many weapons.

Like I've said yesterday or day before in an almost identical thread with the same premise as this one - We're gonna be hearing more and more about this Fed's poetic non-measurable indefinable achievements. Djokodal just have no chance in this fight, on the field of subjective perceived non-touchable greatness, the last refuge of Fed fans.
These terms like "incredible longetivity", "more distant", "game style", "contribution to tennis", "icon", "perceived", (unidentified) "records", "perception of domination",... It's all just a weak try to contaminate GOAT debate with these (literally) meaningless terms, in order to avoid any objective comparisons.
It's just shady dishonest stuff.
What happened with 20>17>15(14,13,12) and 310(302)>2xx?
Well fedfanbase fear and worry happened.
That's why they started to move to imagine-land of "epicness, iconness, perceptioness,".

So, this poor argument is soon to be a diehard-fedfan standard: "Yeah, Djokovic (Nadal) may have better numbers or stronger achievements, BUT Fed is more EPIC, ICONIC, DISTANT, PERCEPTIONALY DOMINANT,..."
Shady stuff.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

r2473 · Jan 30, 2019

Pretty much proves Federer is GOAT

FedGR · Jan 30, 2019

Fed's sheer talent and racket handling skills are what set him apart from the rest. Even if the other 2 surpass (whose talent you can't ignore or downplay) Fed, they did it mostly/primarily based on their athleticism and not based on their talent.

3lite · Jan 30, 2019

TMF said:
H2H is not the criteria in evaluation GOAT.

Objectively, this is the most fair list.

PLAYER CRITERIA
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

Until it does become the criteria.

The degree of separation is only creeping closer.

itrium84 · Jan 30, 2019

FedGR said:
Fed's sheer talent and racket handling skills are what set him apart from the rest. Even if the other 2 surpass (whose talent you can't ignore or downplay) Fed, they did it mostly/primarily based on their athleticism and not based on their talent.

"Talent"? What is that? Can you please provide objective criteria for measuring and comparing talent?
How do you know if someone has more of it than someone else?

"Racket handling skills"!? What!? Does that really mean anything? How do you measure those?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

Red Rick · Jan 30, 2019

I love how after like a decade of x>y>z where it's all about Slam count we've officially gotten to the point where Fed is goat because he hits pretty shots

Finally the jig is up.

Now I have to make the counterpoint that Fed has just about the ugliest nose on Tour. It's huge. How can anyone like that be goat?

BGod · Jan 30, 2019

For me it's pretty simple in breaking down the categories separately.

The 4 Slams judged individually, meaning spread is valued. I look at it as market share in business. If a company has 100% market share in 1 country but another company has 50% market share in 4 other comparable countries by economy then does it matter how many more products the 100% market company is releasing?

After the Slams you're looking at the weeks at #1, as YE can be more circumstantial over the course of 12 months.

WTF is whether people like it or not, an elevated Masters so it's the best of the rest. After that you have to look at the big draws of Indian Wells and Miami. Then it becomes more subjective but Canada, Madrid and Paris are pretty far behind at the bottom. Shanghai, Cincinnati, Rome probably round out the Top 5 while MC is a very nice place for a lot of players but I guess the prestige isn't there because of the non-mandatory aspect.

In close situations you gotta count up deep runs. From one aspect a guy like Kuerten going 3-0 in semifinals and finals to get his titles is great but over a career if those were the only deep runs it starts to weigh down. A guy who has made many semifinal runs for example but was just not good enough to beat a Top 3 guy, well, they have to be commended for at least playing up to their potential, a lot don't.

True Fanerer · Jan 30, 2019

Red Rick said:
I love how after like a decade of x>y>z where it's all about Slam count we've officially gotten to the point where Fed is goat because he hits pretty shots

Finally the jig is up.

Now I have to make the counterpoint that Fed has just about the ugliest nose on Tour. It's huge. How can anyone like that be goat?

NEW_BORN · Jan 30, 2019

Junior World no.1 and holder of Junior Slam title is a must.
Olympic flag bearer and winner of Olympic gold medal is another must.
Winner of the triple crown of team competition - Hopman Cup, Laver Cup, Davis Cup - is yet another must.

Pheasant · Jan 30, 2019

The slam count is the ultimate focus here. However, if Djoker won the CYGS this year, then he’d have the ultimate bragging rights for the best season ever. He’d be Laver and Budge wrapped into one. Something that historic would be the exception to the slam count. The CYGS has an insane amount of pressure attached to it. It is the holy grail of tennis. The last time that somebody was close was Serena. Serena was two matches away and she uncharacteristically choked it away against a scrub. It was actually really sad to see.

Let’s see what the rest of 2019 brings us. The FO is going to be quite interesting, especially if Thiem is clicking on all 8 cylinders. A Thiem/Djokovic match at RG is what I would love to see.

KineticChain · Jan 30, 2019

Federev · Jan 30, 2019

itrium84 said:
"Talent"? What is that? Can you please provide objective criteria for measuring and comparing talent?
How do you know if someone has more of it than someone else?

"Racket handling skills"!? What!? Does that really mean anything? How do you measure those?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

FEDR

Federev · Jan 30, 2019

The title of all these GOAT analysis/criteria threads where we all debate and pontificate about the validity of various “metrics” should pretty much be changed to:

“Who is your favorite player?”

Also tho...

... FEDR.

FedGR · Jan 30, 2019

itrium84 said:
"Talent"? What is that? Can you please provide objective criteria for measuring and comparing talent?
How do you know if someone has more of it than someone else?

"Racket handling skills"!? What!? Does that really mean anything? How do you measure those?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

You haven't heard the terms talent and racket handling skills before? How long have you been watching tennis? I am honestly surprised you are asking.

mahesh69a · Jan 30, 2019

Oh great, another thread where subjective info (opinions) are posted as objective facts ... where would ttw be without a bunch of these threads everyday?

GabeT · Jan 30, 2019

KineticChain said:

Ok, this made me laugh out loud in the office!

FedGR · Jan 30, 2019

Not all things can be measured quantitatively. Terms like talent, skills, anticipation, perseverance, persistence, strategy are not always easy to define. This is tennis, not the 200m sprint.

mahesh69a · Jan 30, 2019

Even the sprint races got into subjective analysis (talks about how far ahead and comfortable Usain bolt looked) - all I am saying is, there are intangibles and objective facts in every sport (or life in general) - but they need not be the same for everyone which makes these debates highly subjective and skewed toward one's favorites.

Pantera · Jan 30, 2019

It’s a combination of amount of Major titles and who a player beat to win those titles which is why for many Nadal and Djokovic are already ahead of Federer.

FedGR · Jan 30, 2019

mahesh69a said:
Even the sprint races got into subjective analysis (talks about how far ahead and comfortable Usain bolt looked) - all I am saying is, there are intangibles and objective facts in every sport (or life in general) - but they need not be the same for everyone which makes these debates highly subjective and skewed toward one's favorites.

True.

KG1965 · Jan 30, 2019

itrium84 said:
Like I've said yesterday or day before in an almost identical thread with the same premise as this one - We're gonna be hearing more and more about this Fed's poetic non-measurable indefinable achievements. Djokodal just have no chance in this fight, on the field of subjective perceived non-touchable greatness, the last refuge of Fed fans.
These terms like "incredible longetivity", "more distant", "game style", "contribution to tennis", "icon", "perceived", (unidentified) "records", "perception of domination",... It's all just a weak try to contaminate GOAT debate with these (literally) meaningless terms, in order to avoid any objective comparisons.
It's just shady dishonest stuff.
What happened with 20>17>15(14,13,12) and 310(302)>2xx?
Well fedfanbase fear and worry happened.
That's why they started to move to imagine-land of "epicness, iconness, perceptioness,".

So, this poor argument is soon to be a diehard-fedfan standard: "Yeah, Djokovic (Nadal) may have better numbers or stronger achievements, BUT Fed is more EPIC, ICONIC, DISTANT, PERCEPTIONALY DOMINANT,..."
Shady stuff.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

Yes, but this is the point.

USOPEN1991 · Jan 30, 2019

KG1965 said:
Yes, but this is the point.

Of course, I recognize the ease with which Federer plays. It's called Talent, but I can not relate to it.
Somehow he remains very unpleasant to me. I much prefer Nadal there. Although he is special.

BGod · Jan 30, 2019

Pantera said:
It’s a combination of amount of Major titles and who a player beat to win those titles which is why for many Nadal and Djokovic are already ahead of Federer.

No. Literally only the fanboys. When the guy is 0-6 at WTFs with over 100 less weeks at #1, no.

titoelcolombiano · Jan 30, 2019

Feelings or perceptions don't come into the GOAT debate at all. Either do styles of play, otherwise just give Gasquet the crown now. All that matter are stats. Which stats to use are open for debate of course, but the tennis media and sports media in general only talk in terms of slam count and then the number 1 ranking, nothing else is generally brought up and this applies to past ATG's also. So, as we stand now, here is the list:

Federer: 20 slams, 310 weeks at # 1 and 5 YE # 1
Nadal: 17 slams, 196 weeks at # 1 and 4 YE # 1
Djokovic 15 slams, 223 weeks at # 1 and 5 YE # 1
Sampras 14 slams, 286 weeks at # 1 and 6 YE # 1

Fed has had 5 more years than Rafa and 6 more years than Djoker to accumulate these stats so we won't know the final result until all three are in retirement with Sampras.

NoleFam · Jan 30, 2019

KG1965 said:
Above all Djokovic does not have many weapons.

Then Djokovic must be the luckiest s.o.b. in history if he does not have many weapons and was the 1st man in nearly 50 years to hold all 4 Slams, the first man ever to win 3 consecutive Slams 3 different times, and the 1st man in history to win 7 AOs. I just don't see how you think your opinion will be taken seriously, as if it wasn't subjective enough, when you post things like this.

Lew II · Jan 30, 2019

Opponents count too.

12 consecutive wins over Big4 in slams for example is something that doesn't appear in career records but is a hell of a achievement.

mr tonyz · Jan 31, 2019

Lew II said:
Opponents count too.

12 consecutive wins over Big4 in slams for example is something that doesn't appear in career records but is a hell of a achievement.

Which Final did you prefer here?

AO 2019 Djoker destroying a fellow ATG & 17-Time slam champ in Nadal for the loss of 7 games?

Or AO 2018 where Federer was pushed to 5 sets vs 1-Time slam champ Cilic? (espececially considering that Cilic grinded Nadal into submission during the QFs en-rout to his final)

Is it a case of name>>>performance?

Pantera · Jan 31, 2019

BGod said:
No. Literally only the fanboys. When the guy is 0-6 at WTFs with over 100 less weeks at #1, no.

I’ve seen countless so called experts put a Nadal and Djokovic ahead of Federer. Nobody ever mentions WTF.

As for weeks at no.1how many weeks has Federer been no.1 since Nadal and Djokovic peaked? I think it’s less than 20.

Pantera · Jan 31, 2019

NoleFam said:
Then Djokovic must be the luckiest s.o.b. in history if he does not have many weapons and was the 1st man in nearly 50 years to hold all 4 Slams, the first man ever to win 3 consecutive Slams 3 different times, and the 1st man in history to win 7 AOs. I just don't see how you think your opinion will be taken seriously, as if it wasn't subjective enough, when you post things like this.

Nadal and Djokovic apparently are the luckiest players in history. When they win Majors it’s because they didn’t face peak wawrinka and cilic etc...

junior74 · Jan 31, 2019

Lew II said:
Opponents count too.

12 consecutive wins over Big4 in slams for example is something that doesn't appear in career records but is a hell of a achievement.

A win is a win. A loss is a loss. Anderson, Berdych, Baggy. No one cares

... apart from us, the nerds who discuss all these "things" surrounding the slams at all times, yet those discussions hardly exist in the real world

The real world cares about are slams won and weeks at #1. People haven't heard of Masters1000 or ATP500 tournaments.

KG1965 · Jan 31, 2019

USOPEN1991 said:
Of course, I recognize the ease with which Federer plays. It's called Talent, but I can not relate to it.
Somehow he remains very unpleasant to me. I much prefer Nadal there. Although he is special.

What you call talent has incredible weight when it comes to GOAT ranking.
Nadal, Djokovic .... or Lendl ... or others also have talent.
But while Fedr's talent is recognized by everyone (fans and not fans), the talent of others is less recognized.
Federer is tennis. Roger may not be nice or he may be considered a mediocre man, but the tennis is Federer.
The man plays a different tennis, like no other. His style is different.
While Nadal, Djokovic, and all the others currently have a style that we have seen a thousand.
I am happy when Nole beats Fedr, but I am aware the serb plays 100 times better than others but with the same style of play. Nothing new.

KG1965 · Jan 31, 2019

NoleFam said:
Then Djokovic must be the luckiest s.o.b. in history if he does not have many weapons and was the 1st man in nearly 50 years to hold all 4 Slams, the first man ever to win 3 consecutive Slams 3 different times, and the 1st man in history to win 7 AOs. I just don't see how you think your opinion will be taken seriously, as if it wasn't subjective enough, when you post things like this.

I do not care to be taken seriously.
I know mine is the truth.
And Novak knows it too.
The style of play is not subjective. It's objective. And it is decisive.

Djokovic_is_the_best#1 · Jan 31, 2019

Djokovic will be the GOAT when all is said and done

KG1965 · Jan 31, 2019

zvelf said:
1. Playing pretty is fine, but ultimately is minor criteria in looking at GOAT.
2. Perception is very tenuous. What people think a decade from now or two or three decades from now is way beyond our ken. This is not at all a reliable indicator for GOAT.

Playing well is a major criterion no less important in watching GOAT.
Perception is everything.
Many were stronger than Ali, but Ali's boxing was lavish and the perception was that he was the greatest.

The statistics are good but with the passage of time could be worth little. Almost nothing. 100 years ago there were other parameters. 60 years ago other parameters. 30 years ago others still.
Now the slams. But the importance of the slams has a relatively recent history (since 1968, the importance of the slams was close to zero before 1968).
Basing the reasoning only on the parameters now prevents a comparison with the old champions.

zvelf · Jan 31, 2019

KG1965 said:
Playing well is a major criterion no less important in watching GOAT.

Playing well and playing pretty are two different things. We were discussing the latter.

Perception is everything.

That's one of those cliched statements that doesn't really mean anything. What is "everything"? In any case, my statement wasn't about the importance of perception but how easily it can change.

The statistics are good but with the passage of time could be worth little. Almost nothing. 100 years ago there were other parameters. 60 years ago other parameters. 30 years ago others still.

There were no stats being kept 100 years ago in tennis to my knowledge. Stats are at least good for comparing athletes within their own era no matter how much time has passed.

USOPEN1991 · Jan 31, 2019

titoelcolombiano said:
Feelings or perceptions don't come into the GOAT debate at all. Either do styles of play, otherwise just give Gasquet the crown now. All that matter are stats. Which stats to use are open for debate of course, but the tennis media and sports media in general only talk in terms of slam count and then the number 1 ranking, nothing else is generally brought up and this applies to past ATG's also. So, as we stand now, here is the list:

Federer: 20 slams, 310 weeks at # 1 and 5 YE # 1
Nadal: 17 slams, 196 weeks at # 1 and 4 YE # 1
Djokovic 15 slams, 223 weeks at # 1 and 5 YE # 1
Sampras 14 slams, 286 weeks at # 1 and 6 YE # 1

Fed has had 5 more years than Rafa and 6 more years than Djoker to accumulate these stats so we won't know the final result until all three are in retirement with Sampras.

What is more important, the WTF Finals or the YE#1?

GabeT · Jan 31, 2019

I will add something else to the list, which i discussed in another thread.

Can you be a tennis GOAT if you are only GOAT in one of the three surfaces, and even then in the least relevant surface of all (relevance measured by available ATP points on that surface).

Or to put it another way, should we sino,y talk of surface GOATs and not overall GOATs?

ompluscator · Jan 31, 2019

KG1965 said:
But the feeling is that Federer is much more distant.

Who has that feeling? Personal opinion or you have some source?

KG1965 said:
1) the style of the game ... where Federer is seen by almost all the media and fans as another category;

Also, personal opinion. This is sport and from that point it's measurable - titles, weeks at number one, records... If level of artistry is the first category, then I suppose Ronald Reagan is the best US president, ever.

KG1965 said:
2) Federer's contribution to tennis: Federer is an icon while Nadal and especially Djokovic are not perceived as icons;

Once again, personal opinion. Even if 90% of fans share same personal opinion, still not enough. As mentioned, sport's achievements can be measured, popularity is something different -"Keeping Up with the Kardashians" is more popular than any science TV show.

KG1965 said:
3) Federer's records, in this category Fedr is almost always clearly ahead of the two antagonists (who have few records);

Yes, and, more important, measurable.

KG1965 said:
4 ) the perception of domination: in this case Nadal is very underneath, because he has never in fact dominated a period, but Nole has an excellent period of domination.
I will have the 5 years of Federer are generally seen as more dominant.

Finally. Critical one and, actually, most important one. There were and there are many artists in many different sports, but everywhere GOATs are defined by the way how and for how long they've dominated in their sport

KG1965 said:
These 4 points where the two rivals are going around. Above all Djokovic does not have many weapons.

In this case, I would say you are loosing arguments for Federer as well - loosing 25 time against player without many weapons is not something which defines you as GOAT.

timnz · Jan 31, 2019

USOPEN1991 said:
What is more important, the WTF Finals or the YE#1?

That's a hard one. The WTF is the fifth most important tennis title. So its pretty important - in some years in the late 70's and 80's it was regarded as a defacto major. On the other hand YE#1 has been the very important for significant period of tennis history - at least since 1931 when Tilden started the World Championship Head to head tours.

KG1965 · Jan 31, 2019

ompluscator said:
Who has that feeling? Personal opinion or you have some source?

Also, personal opinion. This is sport and from that point it's measurable - titles, weeks at number one, records... If level of artistry is the first category, then I suppose Ronald Reagan is the best US president, ever.

Once again, personal opinion. Even if 90% of fans share same personal opinion, still not enough. As mentioned, sport's achievements can be measured, popularity is something different -"Keeping Up with the Kardashians" is more popular than any science TV show.

Yes, and, more important, measurable.

Finally. Critical one and, actually, most important one. There were and there are many artists in many different sports, but everywhere GOATs are defined by the way how and for how long they've dominated in their sport

In this case, I would say you are loosing arguments for Federer as well - loosing 25 time against player without many weapons is not something which defines you as GOAT.

It does not take Einstein or Kant to understand who has that feeling.

Wrong, sport is not all measurable.

If 90% of fans share the same personal opinion, the concept becomes truth.
Personal opinion is subjective and counts one. But if 99% say that a player plays better than others in a sport, the concept becomes objective.

Playing well is not just subjective, it becomes objective.
Tennis is art, and like all the arts, judgment is subjective. But it becomes objective.
I don't like Beatles music, Mozart and Bach make me sick. Mine is a subjective judgment.
But I must understand that their music is considered incredibly beautiful by the majority. So it is objectively beautiful.

ompluscator · Jan 31, 2019

KG1965 said:
It does not take Einstein or Kant to understand who has that feeling.

Wrong, sport is not all measurable.

If 90% of fans share the same personal opinion, the concept becomes truth.

We are not talking about elections. Majority can't just decide that 20 GS is bigger than 15.

Especially if we talk about majority of fans - they are not objective, that's actually what makes them fans.

KG1965 · Jan 31, 2019

ompluscator said:
We are not talking about elections. Majority can't just decide that 20 GS is bigger than 15.

Especially if we talk about majority of fans - they are not objective, that's actually what makes them fans.

No, it's the opposite.

The majority can not decide that 20 GS is bigger than 15. Simply because 20> 15, it's a fact.

The majority decides other aspects.

If it were simply a question of numbers this site would close. A thread would suffice: 20> 17> 15> 14, Laver 11, ............. Gonzalez 2, ....
no discussions.

Instead there are big problems, just because the slam counts are not enough.

Keystoner · Jan 31, 2019

This reminds me of Baghdad Bob.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

The factors that weigh in the GOAT debate.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Professional

New User

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Professional

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Semi-Pro

Banned

Professional

Legend

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Banned

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

New User

Legend

Legend

New User

Legend

Semi-Pro

Similar threads