SecondServeAce
Rookie
So Emerson was everyone's GOAT right? LOL!!!
Your example of Emerson's success supports what I said.Well, Emerson stayed in the amateur tour, and grabbed 12 slams... But no one really thought Emerson's mark was of huge significance - precisely because it was a split field, and others such as Laver or Rosewall were arguably better players.
No it doesn't. Winners of multiple amateur slams almost all switched to playing pro. The ability to win multiple slams translated in almost every case to a desire to earn money legitimately. Emerson was a very rare exception.Your example of Emerson's success supports what I said.
Sure sure...but if it was - Fed with 22, Nad with 18 and Djo with 20 you would consider an option! LOL We are starting to sing these "No matter who amongst the three is greatest" only recently, when Djokovic started to showing signs of breaking all sort of Federer's records! (With the exception of maybe multiple consecutive ones!)...So now this argument, that no matter who is the GOAT amongst the three is suddenly valid! HAHA You are all exposed with your "I want to sit on both chairs with one butt" crap!...I call people like you - a prostitute with no principles! I'd rather show respect to a person, who knows who he routes for and why, than to a person who tries hard to be a fan of everyone, but rather coming out as someone incredibly fake and non genuine! (Why?! Because no one is ever a defnite fan of EVERYONE! EVERYONE got their favorite, that they will route for no matter, who he plays against! Simple as that! Anyone, who tries to argue with that - just fooling him/herself! And i have no respect for such people...))...at least with Djoker haters and Fedal fans i get it...with the likes of you - i don't, cuz you want to act like some smartass shady chinese politician, who smiles at your face and shakes your hand on camera, but planning thousands of ways to invade your country in his head...
I agree and it's an argument that will never be settled anyway,why is it so important to have a GOAT? They are the 3 greatest players ever,that's enough isn't it? I can't imagine even in a scenario where Djokovic finishes on 22 slams,Fed 20 and Nadal 18 that Djokovic will be a unanimous pick. They're just the 3 greatest,that's it...
the most important factor in determining the goat is the number of slams at the end of their careers...the op and anyone else can make any excuse and every excuse in the book as to why the previous generations did not reach the heights of federer, nadal and djokovic, but the truth is that no other players in history have been this good or this dominant...the next 2 or 3 years are going to determine the greatest tennis player of all time, and in my opinion it's without a doubt the most compelling storyline in all of sports...my money is still on my man fed, but djokovic is coming like a freight train at the moment and nadal could still possibly win 2 or 3 more french open titles...in my opinion fed needs 2 more slams to seal the deal and despite what happened in the 4th round of australia I think he will still win the 2 more slams that he needs to seal the deal...novak is the biggest threat to fed after what happened in that final, and if he wins roland garros it's going to go down to the wire...my prediction has changed after australia...at the end of these greats careers i'm going with this prediction:
federer- 22
djokovic- 21
nadal- 20
Only Federer comes out of that heap as a GOAT contender really
Nadal is nowhere near these guys in proper context (never defending a non-French Slam is one thing) and why I have him behind Borg and Sampras.
That's easy to say when you have no idea what they were chasing, and when they have no chance to improve on the number they achieved. The fact is, slams have always been the measure of accomplishment in tennis.It might make good copy in the sports pages and lead to heated debate on here, but at some point even the most fanatical worshippers of the Big 3 are going to have to realise that the slam race has NO significance in tennis history.
None.
It is mostly an invention of the 21st Century. The fact that three players in one generation have won 15+ slams is proof that the focus of the sport has entirely altered in the past two decades. The amateur/pro split made reaching double figures almost impossible and the greats of the 70s and early 80s thought so little of the slam count they didn't even travel to Australia.
It'll be fun to see who eventually wins this little race (I suspect it will be Djokovic) but it is a race none of the other all-time greats were even attempting to run.
Probably not, certainly not Emmo himself. But Mary Carillo did make a very big deal about Sampras tying and breaking Emerson's slam total record in 1999-2000.So Emerson was everyone's GOAT right? LOL!!!
Well, hard to argue with that part. Humans make up less than 1.5x10^-70% of the observable universe. And we haven't really done anything all that noteworthy with respect to the universe.Next thread from OP - "Global warming is a race that no one else was running. The human race has NO significance in the universe's history."
Which day should we create threads?
So you think Roy Emerson was considered the greatest of all time until Sampras?That's easy to say when you have no idea what they were chasing, and when they have no chance to improve on the number they achieved. The fact is, slams have always been the measure of accomplishment in tennis.
It is mostly an invention of the 21st Century. The fact that three players in one generation have won 15+ slams is proof that the focus of the sport has entirely altered in the past two decades. The amateur/pro split made reaching double figures almost impossible and the greats of the 70s and early 80s thought so little of the slam count they didn't even travel to Australia.
You're warping the story now. The original claim was that the amateur/pro era made it harder for people to win majors when Emerson shows perfectly that the opposite is true. The motivation to seek more money by playing the pros is irrelevant to the point about ability. Emerson's slam total benefited greatly by the fact that many of the best players were absent when he was winning those majors - no less than if suddenly the French Open was open to everyone except Spanish players. Those who win it would be getting an easier ride.No it doesn't. Winners of multiple amateur slams almost all switched to playing pro. The ability to win multiple slams translated in almost every case to a desire to earn money legitimately. Emerson was a very rare exception.
Thing is, a large majority of the players who'd begin winning many (amateur) slams would quickly switch to pro - because they'd have very little incentive to stay amateur. And once you've switched, you can't go back to slams as amateur.You're warping the story now. The original claim was that the amateur/pro era made it harder for people to win majors when Emerson shows perfectly that the opposite is true. The motivation to seek more money by playing the pros is irrelevant to the point about ability. Emerson's slam total benefited greatly by the fact that many of the best players were absent when he was winning those majors - no less than if suddenly the French Open was open to everyone except Spanish players. Those who win it would be getting an easier ride.
I'm sorry. I try to debate issues in an even-handed way but you clearly don't have the first clue about how tennis used to work in the pre-Open era.You're warping the story now. The original claim was that the amateur/pro era made it harder for people to win majors when Emerson shows perfectly that the opposite is true. The motivation to seek more money by playing the pros is irrelevant to the point about ability. Emerson's slam total benefited greatly by the fact that many of the best players were absent when he was winning those majors - no less than if suddenly the French Open was open to everyone except Spanish players. Those who win it would be getting an easier ride.
Point taken and hard to disagree with that as you said.Well, hard to argue with that part. Humans make up less than 1.5x10^-70% of the observable universe. And we haven't really done anything all that noteworthy with respect to the universe.