I also remember (and I agree with you) that in the 70s there was talk of 3 great candidates:
Tilden, Budge and Laver, especially in Europe.
In America Kramer and Gonzalez were on top.
But the
parameters were not the slams (also because those old champions had won a limited number): it was the
feeling that they were dominant.
It is no coincidence that Rosewall who had won the most was not considered.
The domain >>>>>>>>>>>>> career and longevity.
But we are in the 70s.
It's also true that
Borg was included in the discussion, especially the European media had seen him dominate RG and W.
But in America the swedish star was considered less. Because he struggled to win. Dominated in half the world, not in everything.
Then he retired.
Even Mac in 1984 was included in the debate but broke out the following year.
The domain / peak parameter changed radically with Sampras.
From that moment the totem of the slam count was introduced.
I also remember (and I agree with you) that in the 70s there was talk of 3 great candidates: Tilden, Budge and Laver, especially in Europe.
In America Kramer and Gonzalez were on top.
But the parameters were not the slams (also because those old champions had won a limited number): it was the feeling that they were dominant.
It is no coincidence that Rosewall who had won the most was not considered.
The domain >>>>>>>>>>>>> career and longevity.
But we are in the 70s.
It's also true that Borg was included in the discussion, especially the European media had seen him dominate RG and W.
But in America the swedish star was considered less. Because he struggled to win. Dominated in half the world, not in everything.
Then he retired.
Even Mac in 1984 was included in the debate but broke out the following year.
The domain / peak parameter changed radically with Sampras.
From that moment the totem of the slam count was introduced.
The domain has nothing to do with it.
In fact, everything can be told about Federer and Nadal but not that they dominated a decade.
They won so many big titles and slams but they didn't destroy the competition like Tilden, Kramer, Pancho, Laver did. And for a two-year Borg.
My impression is that the current parameter is very hasty and very wrong. But so was the old parameter based on the peak, because winning so much must count for a lot.
The preferable system is the third way: a mixed system that involves thinking about everything.
But it's tiring.
Laver reduced to 2 GS is something sadness.
Laver is 210 titles, and understand how many of these are relevant ones, understand when he dominated and when he didn't dominate, understand the whole career.
Gonzalez reduced to 2 slam is a real crap. Kramer at 3 equal. Borg at 11 slam makes you laugh.
And what about Sampras reduced to the one who won only 14 slams?
Today's media tennis experts and talking heads (including ex-super stars) would acknowledge that Gorgo and Big Jake are among the greatest, if directly challenged. They just don't know how to talk about them because they are not willing to do a bit of research. Twenty-five years ago, the television commentators would still mention them, and Tilden. No longer.
This goes to Pheasant's question. I endorse the idea of a "mixed system." Like you, I am working on it. You start to take a look at what was really going on in tennis, you realize you have to include Tilden and Gonzalez in a GOAT discussion.
The problem is that we know this. But the tennis media does not, and it is not in ATP's interest to bring this up. As a result, the fans do not know about it either. It is not like baseball, basketball, or even football (soccer), where the fans recognize and appreciate the accomplishments of the old players, and the Top 100 lists are filled with players who pre-date 1968, and the top-10 include old players as well. No one has forgotten Babe Ruth; no one has forgotten Wilt Chamberlain. You would not see a top-10 without them on it. In football, you will frequently see "old-time" players on a top-10 list, or certainly in the top 20 (Di Stefano, 1950s-60s; Meazza, 1930s; Garrincha, 1950s-60s; Charlton, 1960s; Eusebio; early 1960s to late 70s; Puskas, 1950s-60s; Zarra, 1940s-50s.
But Don Budge, Bill Tilden? there is but a vague acknowledgment that they did something long ago.
The domain has nothing to do with it.
In fact, everything can be told about
Federer and Nadal but not that they dominated a decade.
They won so many big titles and slams but they didn't destroy the competition like Tilden, Kramer, Pancho, Laver did. And for a two-year Borg.
My impression is that the current parameter is very hasty and very wrong. But so was the old parameter based on the peak, because winning so much must count for a lot.
The preferable system is the third way: a mixed system that involves thinking about everything.
But it's tiring.
Laver reduced to 2 GS is something sadness.
Laver is 210 titles, and understand how many of these are relevant ones, understand when he dominated and when he didn't dominate, understand the whole career.
Gonzalez reduced to 2 slam is a real crap. Kramer at 3 equal. Borg at 11 slam makes you laugh.
And what about Sampras reduced to the one who won only 14 slams?