A different viewpoint on GOAT that I argue with, but I want feedback from others.

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
It seems to be a natural tendency to think of ourselves as a "new and improved" version of our younger selves.
We are in some ways until we clearly decline because we know more. You're a musician. You know that some of the famous composers write things that stand alone shortly before their deaths.

However, in sports the physical is such a dominant factor that all the knowledge and growth in the world about how to win will not counteract aging for long. Apparently aging did not bode well for physicists either, who appeared to max out at around age 30.

Peak seems to be much later for very creative people. Stokowski was still an intimidating musical force in his 90s. Franck wrote his D Minor Symphony not long before he died. Then there is the strange case of Grandma Moses.
 

tonylg

Hall of Fame
I loved those discussions between those 4, thanks for posting them.

One thing I really noticed was the reaction of the other 3 when Lendl was talking about his little grass court training camp with Rochie and said the "best day of my tennis career" was when he got to play with Rosewall, Newcombe and Roche.

I love that Lendl (and Borg before him) worked so hard to become a complete player by mastering a skill set that didn't come naturally to him.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
We are in some ways until we clearly decline because we know more. You're a musician. You know that some of the famous composers write things that stand alone shortly before their deaths.

However, in sports the physical is such a dominant factor that all the knowledge and growth in the world about how to win will not counteract aging for long. Apparently aging did not bode well for physicists either, who appeared to max out at around age 30.

Peak seems to be much later for very creative people. Stokowski was still an intimidating musical force in his 90s. Franck wrote his D Minor Symphony not long before he died. Then there is the strange case of Grandma Moses.
In the case of athletes, the last person to realize the aging process is the athlete himself/herself. I got that feeling from listening to both Rosewall and Serena after their losses in the U.S. Open finals, both of them puzzled about how they could play so badly. This can't be me!
 

Xavier G

Professional
Regarding the "GOAT" debate, I would say Rod Laver still has a claim to be best ever imo, with 2 Grand Slams, even allowing for one amateur Slam (1962), given he won a full Open slam (1969) and won over 200 tourneys .He's at least a Tier 1 ATG as far as I'm concerned.

Bjorn Borg retired young. If he could have maintained that top level for another three or four years, he might have had a real claim for "GOAT". He was a phenomenal athlete for his day and strong on all surfaces including indoors which was a big element of tour tennis back then and even on hard courts where he didn't win a Slam.

Pete Sampras unfortunately didn't do so well on clay. He can be considered Tier 1 on grass and indoors surfaces but he's ruled out of overall "GOAT" running.

Fed, Nadal and Djoker all have the chance to be considered Open era GOAT which probably would translate to all time GOAT. For me, Federer is still ahead of the other two in many important categories.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
I'm sorry to blame your family, but they are off track.

1) Laver can be placed in a Tier 1 but certainly not for the 2 GS, as one is a GS amateurs, therefore non-existent.
Rod can be placed in Tier 1 because has won 210 titles of which 60 are very relevant.

2) Borg is very overrated. Certainly a great player but he dominated 2-3 years. He won very little compared to a dozen ATGs.
Tier 2.
Bjorn is a little Nadal.
I agree, excellent post. Rosewall won 133, 50 of which are relevant, or so I have read. Also, Laver played more years on the amateur circuit than Rosewall who joined the pro tour at 22 and spent 6 more years there than Laver. While Laver was winning against Emerson, Santana, Stolle, Drysdale etc. Rosewall was competing against peak Gonzalez, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Sedgman and Gimeno.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
I agree, excellent post. Rosewall won 133, 50 of which are relevant, or so I have read. Also, Laver played more years on the amateur circuit than Rosewall who joined the pro tour at 22 and spent 6 more years there than Laver. While Laver was winning against Emerson, Santana, Stolle, Drysdale etc. Rosewall was competing against peak Gonzalez, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Sedgman and Gimeno.
Rosewall had a great career, but not a great season.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Rosewall had a great career, but not a great season.
Rosewall's best season was 1963 (96 wins), but he was beating a rookie Laver, and an injured Hoad, and he lost some high-profile matches to Laver....I would also look at the strength of the field in evaluating achievements.
 

aliceinpains

New User
I'm sorry to blame your family, but they are off track.

1) Laver can be placed in a Tier 1 but certainly not for the 2 GS, as one is a GS amateurs, therefore non-existent.
Rod can be placed in Tier 1 because has won 210 titles of which 60 are very relevant.
Amatuer era grand slams count the same as open era Grand slams. There are no asterisks. The best player in the world in the 60's were amateurs. They were just not allowed to be called pros, but refered to themselves as independents.
 

Tshooter

Legend
I thought this was going to be a different viewpoint on FEDR arising from your many arguments with him.

"A different viewpoint on GOAT that I argue with"

Instead it is a totally misleading thread title and another standard TTW GOAT-talk thread no different from the hundreds that preceded it or the hundreds that will follow.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
We are in some ways until we clearly decline because we know more. You're a musician. You know that some of the famous composers write things that stand alone shortly before their deaths.

However, in sports the physical is such a dominant factor that all the knowledge and growth in the world about how to win will not counteract aging for long. Apparently aging did not bode well for physicists either, who appeared to max out at around age 30.

Peak seems to be much later for very creative people. Stokowski was still an intimidating musical force in his 90s. Franck wrote his D Minor Symphony not long before he died. Then there is the strange case of Grandma Moses.
Some musicians retain their athletic skills long after their physical peak.

Here is Backhaus at age 53 in 1939 with the most virtuosic and powerful Brahms 2,


And Stokowski himself at age 84 conducting a powerful Emperor, more macho than much younger conductors.

 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
I don't think any of the Big Three have definitively surpassed Laver. So those in your family who insist on Laver as best in history have an argument.
..and its likely the same argument using the same accepted criteria used for a half century.
 

Sport

Legend
the "slam count" is nonsense.

Leaving aside the old champions, assuming that Nadal ends up at 22 slams, Nole at 21 and Fedr at 20 ... who can say that Nadal is the GOAT, Nole the second and Fedr the third.

Not even an idiot.
That is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argumentum ad hominem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An argumentum ad hominem is to attack the person who makes the argument, rather than the argument that the person is defending. If someone says "The number of Slams is the most relevant all-time great criterion", you cannot simply say "you are stupid". That would be a fallacy ad hominem, as you are simply attacking the person who makes the argument, rather than refuting the argument that Slams are the most relevant criterion.

There is no doubt that the number of Slams is the GOAT criterion. Sorry if you dislike Nadal.
 
Top