A GOAT list giving each era its due
- Thread starter John123
- Start date
rosenstar
Professional
It's a game of semantics... One could also argue that all those players were at equal levels an just constantly beat up on each other, while Roger managed to rise above it.
First of all, most of those "clay court specialist" have less finals appearances and an equal or lesser number of french open titles than federer. Roger has had a fairly easy time with most serve and volleyers, likely b/c of the new technology.
I don't see anything that suggests to me that Stitch is that much better than djokovic for example, who's has wins over a 5 time french open champion ON CLAY.
When SgtJohn posted his list, I said that the list is more misleading than helpful for measuring GOAT status, and SgtJohn agreed. He wrote: "as you said, such a list is more useful as a 'tool' to remember and analyze the great tournaments than as to measure a player's 'GOAT'-ness." http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=276485 (entries #2 and #5)
When I made that point again elsewhere, you agreed. You wrote: "This is a good insight. We drown in numbers, counting majors, super-9 titles. What we really should be considering is dominance of players in relation to their peers." http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3734455 (entry #33)
CyBorg
Legend
That's not what people mean by peak. Peak refers to an extended period, a year or two. But not prime, which is normally many more years.
Peak match performance is virtually meaningless. One match doesn't make a tournament, let alone a year. The best match ever played may have been by someone we barely know.
CyBorg
Legend
Read that again. I was referring to counting majors, not identifying important tournaments as an abstract aid.
I think that your thread is interesting, but its usefulness will always be limited unless you can provide the reader some basic, abstract ideas to hold on to. Without that you'll just have a lot of words.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Then you can throw Agassi in there too. Winning slams till he was 33, making a slam final when he was 35 and barely able to get through two matches in a row without cortisone shots, still in the top 10 at 36 when barely playing, and totally broken down physically, still a fair bet for last 32's, still able to beat top 10 players. Yes, a lot about success in tennis is in the head, but here in the 21st century, when physical conditioning in the game is at a whole other level, there's no way someone in Agassi's condition at that point should have been able to ride as high as he did, no matter how much of a great he is.
With regards to your first point, like I said in my last post "do they do well on clay because they're amazing on the surface, or do they do well because they're all playing against each other rather than truly honed clay courters?" Those guys have equal or less titles because there were so many great clay players, now, when Fed is winning Roland Garros...there are not. As for your second point, Federer has had a good time with what few serve and volleyers there are left, but again, the surface is different now and not conducive to that kind of game. None of the players are the very top of the game play the way.
Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, woah, WOAH! ...he's a SIX time french open champion! :razz:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Who is "Stitch"?
Datacipher
Banned
Don't know that much about Wilt, and certainly his feats have been the subject of controversy.....but I certainly could easily believe 13 feet....he would only have to go slightly around 40 inches and it's completely believable to me that he could have been in the 40+ inch range. The guy competed in track and field as well....quite an athlete.
jeffreyneave
Rookie
world number 1
I disagree that gonzales has the longest run at world number one. In 1958 sedgman deserved the honour. He won 2 majors wembley(the most important event) and aussie pro whilst Gonzales won only one. He also had 4-2 head to head advantage over Gonzales in proper matches including winning their two best of 5 set matches.
In 1960 Rosewall deserved to be co-number 1 with Gonzales. He dominated the tournament circut, which Gonzales avoided playing, winning both pro majors in London and Paris. Gonzales might have won the world series defeating Rosewall there, but that's insufficient when you don't give the other players a chance to play you in tournaments.
Gonzales probably also deserved a share of number one in 1952 with Sedgman.
In 1964 Laver was a clear number one. Compared to Rosewall he won 2 majors to one; he won 11 tournaments to 10; had a head to head advantage of 15 to 4 over Rosewall. He also had a superior win loss percentage of 74.8% to 69.5%.
In 1970 Laver also deserved to be number one. He won 15 tournaments including 5 masters series level events. In comparison his challenger Rosewall won only 6 events including one major, but no master series events. Laver also had 5-0 head to head advantage over Rosewall and 3-0 one over Newcombe (who only won 4 events including Wimbledon) the other contender. Using the Atp championship race points system of 2000-2008 (I did the calculation a few years ago) laver is a clear winner with 1095 points to Rosewall's 865 points.
This means that Laver has longest run at number one 1964-70 not gonzales 54-57 and 59. I also rate laver number one in 1971 using the atp points system, but that's closer and needs agreement on the points system that is used.
jeffrey
I disagree that gonzales has the longest run at world number one. In 1958 sedgman deserved the honour. He won 2 majors wembley(the most important event) and aussie pro whilst Gonzales won only one. He also had 4-2 head to head advantage over Gonzales in proper matches including winning their two best of 5 set matches.
In 1960 Rosewall deserved to be co-number 1 with Gonzales. He dominated the tournament circut, which Gonzales avoided playing, winning both pro majors in London and Paris. Gonzales might have won the world series defeating Rosewall there, but that's insufficient when you don't give the other players a chance to play you in tournaments.
Gonzales probably also deserved a share of number one in 1952 with Sedgman.
In 1964 Laver was a clear number one. Compared to Rosewall he won 2 majors to one; he won 11 tournaments to 10; had a head to head advantage of 15 to 4 over Rosewall. He also had a superior win loss percentage of 74.8% to 69.5%.
In 1970 Laver also deserved to be number one. He won 15 tournaments including 5 masters series level events. In comparison his challenger Rosewall won only 6 events including one major, but no master series events. Laver also had 5-0 head to head advantage over Rosewall and 3-0 one over Newcombe (who only won 4 events including Wimbledon) the other contender. Using the Atp championship race points system of 2000-2008 (I did the calculation a few years ago) laver is a clear winner with 1095 points to Rosewall's 865 points.
This means that Laver has longest run at number one 1964-70 not gonzales 54-57 and 59. I also rate laver number one in 1971 using the atp points system, but that's closer and needs agreement on the points system that is used.
jeffrey
Bilbo
Semi-Pro
I see where you're coming from. And it's an interesting point of view that I never really looked at before. However, I'm in a slightly different place on the "era" argument. A big reason that I think players who played in the 1800's and early 1900's should be looked at...differently... is because they played in eras that didn't allow players of different races that were not white to play. IMO, an era of a sport that was barred to a large # of competitors and doesn't give everyone a shot to compete should be looked at with an asterisk. Now, granted, I completely understand that it's not the players fault that non-white players weren't given an opportunity to compete, and I am, in no way shape or form insinuating that it is their fault. That having been said though, I think it's impossible to overlook. More competitors as of the 1960's and on meant more competition and a deeper field. That alone has to put players who played in the 1800's and early 1900's on a platform below those who played in the 1960's and on.
Now, the argument that one group of players was better than another group of players all in the open era (or slightly before the open era) can and will be debated forever. But, I know for sure that the competition in the 1960's was eons better than it was in the 1800's and early 1900's simply because it gave more opportunities to non-white competitors.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Wilt was a track star in school and I believe he has said he could touch the top of the backboard.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Jeffrey,
Remember that in 1958 as in earlier years and for a number of years later Pancho Gonzalez's main concern was the head to head (one night stands) for the World Title. Whoever would win was considered the World Champion. Gonzalez won that tour over Lew Hoad 51 matches to 36. Gonzalez also won the US Pro that year. We are not talking about the standards of today when we look at majors. The key to Gonzalez was maintaining his World Championship and to do that he had to win his tour against Hoad.
As far as John123 system is concern. I admire the idea and intentions but I do have some concerns about the methods. Why should a player be penalized because another great player is around him and does about as well? Rosewall and Laver in ANY ERA would have accomplished a lot.
So what would have happened if the Nadal of 2010 was able to play at about the same time as Federer in his peak years from 2004 to 2007 or so? Let's say by magic that Federer does about the same as he did in real life (I know it doesn't add up mathematically but I want to explain a point) and Nadal does also. Well why should Nadal and Federer be penalized by the system of evaluating because there are two great players instead of one?
Is it fair penalize Bjorn Borg in 1978 because Jimmy Connors also had a great year? It's hard to be more dominant than Borg in 1978 considering he won two majors, 18 total tournaments won and way over 90% of his matches. Connors was great also, winning many tournaments, one major (over an injured Borg) and over 90% of his matches. So as dominant as Borg was and very few in the history of tennis were as dominant as Borg was in 1978, he is not considered dominant by this methodology because Connors had a great record also?? I'm sorry but I must disagree. I don't think the two are linked.
In Major League baseball in the United States the 1975 Cinncinati Reds (the Big Red Machine and winners of 108 games in the regular season) is considered one of the greatest teams of all time if not the best. Yet just five years before in 1970, the Baltimore Orioles won 108 games. Both were considered great teams and yet by the system both teams would be penalized in terms of greatness because they were just years apart and had similar years by record. In the history of baseball there haven't been many teams that have won 108 games and above.
Here's a theoretical example. Let's say a baseball team wins all 162 games it plays and goes 162-0. The team that finishes in second place wins every game but the twelve it plays against the first place team and finishes twelve games behind at 150-12.
Let's say a team from the previous year wins 120 games in 162 played and finishes twenty two games ahead of the second best team. The second best team wins 98 games. Well by these standards this first place team is superior to the unbeaten team the next year since this team finished twenty two games ahead and the unbeaten team finished "only" twelve games ahead. Yet how can you do better than unbeaten? You cannot. Unbeaten is about as dominant as you can get.
You can't necessarily look at linkage as how good you are relative to the next best or to the players in previous years.
We also have to look at the level of competition. Gonzalez in the 1950's played on a tour that had legends playing against him every week. He played Rosewall, Hoad, Kramer, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Cooper, Olmedo, Anderson among others. Gonzalez was playing competition far superior to many in the previous and later eras.
I do disagree about Rosewall being overrated. How can a man who won 136 tournaments, 23 majors and was number one for a number of years be overrated?
Now perhaps I am wrong about John123's methodology so if I am incorrect please explain it to me but if I understand correctly I believe that there could be some problems.
John 123, incidentally I am glad you put H L Doherty on the list but to me it's debatable about him and Tilden being the top player of pre WWII. Maybe, maybe not.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Another way to look at the all time rgeats is the very top kind of opposition they had in their pirme.Let´s take their 2 main rivals.
Tilden had Cochet and Lacoste, both provided complementary, yet, terrific talent.Cochet for his genious shotmaking and Lacoste, being the first really great baseliner.He had a lot of trouble with them in major events.So I don´t think Tilden would qualify as GOAT.
Now Budge.Perry was the only comparable player.Von Cramm, whilge great on clay, was not a major factor.If Budge had played a top Vines or a top Crawford, he would have had the amount of top 3 competition needed to be in the top 5 GOAT.I don´t think he was very succesful against an ageeing Vines when turning pro.A great champion, but not the GOAT.
Kramer had Sedgman and young Gonzales, whom he dominated till Gonzales emerged as the best pro in the mid 50´s.he also had tough opponents like Schoreder or Parker.His 4-5 years between 1946 and 1950 make him, in the context of his dominance with his 2-3 main rivals a candidate for GOAT.But he alsted not many years at the top, so, even if he dominated more than Budge or Tilden, may be not enough.
Gonzales had Hoad, Rosewall and Laver.To me, this is the best foursome ever gathered at the same time.the 4 players are candidates for GOAT.Pancho also beat Trabert and other big guys in the 50´s.However,he had much trouble against Rosewall, first and Laver, next.Laver is the most complete player of this unbelievable quartet, and that, alone, puts him, in my context of anaisis as the GOAT, or at the very less, a top 2-3 GOAT.Gonzalez adn Rosewall are top ten caliber and Hoad, would also be there if not for his injuries that shortened his career.But, take into account that in any case, laver had not just 2 big rivals ( like Kramer,Tilden or Budge) but 3.
Borg had Connors and Mac at their primes and emerged with the best record.Vilas on clay and later a young lendl also challenged his status.To me, because of the quality of his 2 main rivals, Borg is a GOAT candidate.If young Lendl had topped a bit before - or Borg continued to play till 84-, he would be on the same league as the Hoad-Pancho-Laver-Rosewall group.
Sampras had just a top Agassi and, for a while Courier and Rafter as main rivals.When Pete topped, Becker and Edberg where going downhill, still being able to beat him.The combined level of competition in the 90´s was very good.However, as I said, he only had a consistent rival, Agassi, while Courier or Rafter never fully established themselves as clear nº 1.because of that, and because of Pete´s dominace over Agassi, he is not GOAT by my standarts...
Fed, the same, only one rival, Nadal and, may be now, when he is downhill, Djokovic.Fed´s talent is certainly enormous, but the level of competition qeaker than during Borg´s or Laver´s peak, not even as strong as Pete´s best years.
Laver and Borg had the toughest 2-3 main rivals.Laver won the 69 slam against Rosewall,Emerson,Santana,Gimeno,Newcombe,Roche,Ashe,Okker,Stolle and other great players near their best.Only Pancho was not as competitive as he had been when the rocket won the 69 slam.That is the difference that puts him above Borg.
rest: Tilden,Perry,Kramer,Budge,Pancho,Hoad,Rosewall,Connors,Lendl,Mac Enroe,Nadal and Agassi.Also honourable mentions to the Doherty, Renshaw,Vines,Emerson,Trabert,Newcombe,Becker,Wilander,Edberg,Vilas,Rafter,Courier and Kuerten.Djokovic is on the verge of joining this group, but only if he keeps on winning GS ttiles for 2-3 more years.
Tilden had Cochet and Lacoste, both provided complementary, yet, terrific talent.Cochet for his genious shotmaking and Lacoste, being the first really great baseliner.He had a lot of trouble with them in major events.So I don´t think Tilden would qualify as GOAT.
Now Budge.Perry was the only comparable player.Von Cramm, whilge great on clay, was not a major factor.If Budge had played a top Vines or a top Crawford, he would have had the amount of top 3 competition needed to be in the top 5 GOAT.I don´t think he was very succesful against an ageeing Vines when turning pro.A great champion, but not the GOAT.
Kramer had Sedgman and young Gonzales, whom he dominated till Gonzales emerged as the best pro in the mid 50´s.he also had tough opponents like Schoreder or Parker.His 4-5 years between 1946 and 1950 make him, in the context of his dominance with his 2-3 main rivals a candidate for GOAT.But he alsted not many years at the top, so, even if he dominated more than Budge or Tilden, may be not enough.
Gonzales had Hoad, Rosewall and Laver.To me, this is the best foursome ever gathered at the same time.the 4 players are candidates for GOAT.Pancho also beat Trabert and other big guys in the 50´s.However,he had much trouble against Rosewall, first and Laver, next.Laver is the most complete player of this unbelievable quartet, and that, alone, puts him, in my context of anaisis as the GOAT, or at the very less, a top 2-3 GOAT.Gonzalez adn Rosewall are top ten caliber and Hoad, would also be there if not for his injuries that shortened his career.But, take into account that in any case, laver had not just 2 big rivals ( like Kramer,Tilden or Budge) but 3.
Borg had Connors and Mac at their primes and emerged with the best record.Vilas on clay and later a young lendl also challenged his status.To me, because of the quality of his 2 main rivals, Borg is a GOAT candidate.If young Lendl had topped a bit before - or Borg continued to play till 84-, he would be on the same league as the Hoad-Pancho-Laver-Rosewall group.
Sampras had just a top Agassi and, for a while Courier and Rafter as main rivals.When Pete topped, Becker and Edberg where going downhill, still being able to beat him.The combined level of competition in the 90´s was very good.However, as I said, he only had a consistent rival, Agassi, while Courier or Rafter never fully established themselves as clear nº 1.because of that, and because of Pete´s dominace over Agassi, he is not GOAT by my standarts...
Fed, the same, only one rival, Nadal and, may be now, when he is downhill, Djokovic.Fed´s talent is certainly enormous, but the level of competition qeaker than during Borg´s or Laver´s peak, not even as strong as Pete´s best years.
Laver and Borg had the toughest 2-3 main rivals.Laver won the 69 slam against Rosewall,Emerson,Santana,Gimeno,Newcombe,Roche,Ashe,Okker,Stolle and other great players near their best.Only Pancho was not as competitive as he had been when the rocket won the 69 slam.That is the difference that puts him above Borg.
rest: Tilden,Perry,Kramer,Budge,Pancho,Hoad,Rosewall,Connors,Lendl,Mac Enroe,Nadal and Agassi.Also honourable mentions to the Doherty, Renshaw,Vines,Emerson,Trabert,Newcombe,Becker,Wilander,Edberg,Vilas,Rafter,Courier and Kuerten.Djokovic is on the verge of joining this group, but only if he keeps on winning GS ttiles for 2-3 more years.
jeffreyneave
Rookie
1958 rankings
The point about 1958 is that the head to head tour did not mean much in terms of world rankings. Hoad was only the 4th or 5th best player in 1958 looking at tournament results. So gonzales beating Hoad does not make him number one even if at the time all the publicity concentated on that match up. You have to be fair to the other players and that's why in 1958 the tournament circuit is more important when doing fair world rankings. segdman won 2 majors to Gonzales' one and had a head to head advantage of 4-2 over gonzales in proper matches. The pro majors existed in the 1950's and 60's so doing world rankings can use the same system as you do today where the majors count most to doing world rankings.
jeffrey
The point about 1958 is that the head to head tour did not mean much in terms of world rankings. Hoad was only the 4th or 5th best player in 1958 looking at tournament results. So gonzales beating Hoad does not make him number one even if at the time all the publicity concentated on that match up. You have to be fair to the other players and that's why in 1958 the tournament circuit is more important when doing fair world rankings. segdman won 2 majors to Gonzales' one and had a head to head advantage of 4-2 over gonzales in proper matches. The pro majors existed in the 1950's and 60's so doing world rankings can use the same system as you do today where the majors count most to doing world rankings.
jeffrey
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Jeffrey,
I think we may to agree to disagree. First of all both Gonzalez and Sedgman won only one Pro Major. Gonzalez won the US Pro and Sedgman won Wembley. The Australian Pro Champs is not a major.
Second we still have to look at the standards of the time. Gonzalez played 87 matches against Lew Hoad for the World Title. That was his main concern to put bread on his table. If Gonzalez lost that he may very well have been through considering the system at the time.
I didn't count the total head to heads but Gonzalez did win two Pro Sets (first to eight games) against Sedgman which you didn't count but was the way they set up two tournaments, one in Palo Alto, California and the other in Bakersfield, California. Gonzalez defeated Sedgman in the Pro Set in both tournaments and won both tournaments.
At the Tournament of Champions in Forest Hills, Gonzalez won the Round robin tournament with a record of 5-1, losing only to Hoad. It was a much stronger field than the Australian Pro Champs. Sedgman finished with a 1-5 record.
I could be incorrect in my counting but I have Gonzalez winning four tournaments that year including the US Pro and the Tournament of Champions with an immensely strong field. Gonzalez won the World Championship series over Hoad. Sedgman won two tournaments, one major in Wembley and the Aussie Pro Champs.
I'm sorry but we just have to agree to disagree.
Jeffrey,
Since you study the rankings each year, who would you say are the top echelon of all time greats?
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Things about Wilt Chamberlain that may be true or not but reputed to be true.
Wilt broke someone's foot about dunking a basketball so hard that it hit player's foot and broke it.
Wilt was clawed by a mountain lion after it jumped him. Wilt grabbed it with his hands, threw it far away off of him and ran back to his car. He played his NBA game that night.
His "ahem" exploits.
As a coach in the ABA in the 1973-74 season Wilt broke up a fight by grabbing the player with one hand and lifted him into the air.
Wilt was a top track and field star.
Wilt once was offered the chance to fight Mohammad Ali.
Red Auerbach was asked when player had the highest potential of any player he had ever seen and he said Wilt.
Wilt had a lousy backhand.
Wilt was a terrific volleyball player.
Wilt averaged more than 48 minutes a game for an NBA season.
Wilt once had 55 rebounds in one NBA game and average 27 for the season.
Wilt averaged 50 points a game for a season and scored 100 in a game.
http://www.121s.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=35045&m=
Notice how high Chamberlain is above the rim in the next link.
One thing about Wilt, he was thin when he first came to the NBA but became extremely muscular later.
http://hoopspeak.com/2011/03/basketball-culture-101-wilt-chamberlain/
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That's an impressive picture of Chamberlain with his hand about 2.5 feet above the rim.
FYI, while at U. Kansas, in addition to other track and field events (440, 880, shot put), Chamberlain won the Big Eight high jump event 3 years in a row with a best effort of 6'6". That was before the Fosburry flop was invented by Dick Fosburry. And the Western roll was a highly skilled technique that took years to master. So, it's more likely that Chamberlain jumped 6'6" with the more common sissor kick technique. Imagine the athleticism needed to get his 7'1" body over a 6'6" bar with his upper body in a straight up position.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Thanks for the additional information Limpinhitter. Incidentally all those stories I wrote in the previous post are true from what I can remember.
By the way, sticking to tennis I believe Wilt used to say he used to play Jennifer Capriati in tennis in one of his books. I think he used to lose to her.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1990-10-14/news/9002190208_1_capriati-chamberlain-chris-evert
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I got to see Wilt and the Lakers play in a pre-season exo game around 1972. He was a sight. He had a huge upper body with arms that looked like legs, and legs that were so long and skinny, he almost looked like a cartoon. But, he could still leap and block shots at their apex. The only other player I've seen do that was Manute Bol, and he was 7'7".
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Wilt was some awesome physical specimen.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Not to get too far afield, but, you know what a triple double is - scoring 10 or more points, 10 or more rebounds and 10 or more assists in a single game. It's a big deal when a player does that today. Now imagine what it took to average a triple double for a career! Nope not Wilt, Oscar Robertson!
Carsomyr
Legend
Hate to get away from tennis, but I thought I'd throw some input in on Wilt.
Despite being one of the most dominant athletes in the game, virtually all of his contemporaries agreed that Russell was better. Definitely a superior defender as well as competitor, Russell dominated Wilt in match-ups and in championships, and not just because of having superior supporting casts - Wilt's coaches and teammates hated playing with the guy. He's made a revisionist comeback due to his eye-popping stats which advanced metric guys like John Hollinger eat up.
Despite being one of the most dominant athletes in the game, virtually all of his contemporaries agreed that Russell was better. Definitely a superior defender as well as competitor, Russell dominated Wilt in match-ups and in championships, and not just because of having superior supporting casts - Wilt's coaches and teammates hated playing with the guy. He's made a revisionist comeback due to his eye-popping stats which advanced metric guys like John Hollinger eat up.
Carsomyr
Legend
He did it for one season, not his career. Still, extremely impressive. But the Big O was another guy whose teammates hated playing with and that ultimately cost him more championships than his talent deserved. But Robertson's disconnect was more the result of rampant racism rather than having an ego disproportionate to his clutch-time performances, as Wilt did.
I'll echo what some others have said. Kudos for 'thinking outside the box.'
And that everyone has their own perspective on greatness, and what 'peak performance' means.
But I'll also say you're loony bins to think Laurie Doherty is the greatest tennis player of all-time. Loony! It's really small apples and mega sized oranges that you're trying to compare. Or basically that Laurie was a big sized fish in a very small pond of tennis players. And the fact that he gobbled up all the small fishes he swam with entitles him to be the greatest of them all. When in reality, if he was around today, a mid level college player would thrash him, easily.
And Borg's record is again overrated. Let's not forget, Borg routinely skipped the Australian Open. He also quit at the age of 25, because he couldn't handle losing. So his winning percentage in the majors is inflated. It just is. Unlike today's players, or even Laver, Rosewall, and many others, Borg DIDN'T put himself on the line at the 4 major championships. He also failed to win the US Open, still regarded as the second biggest of the 4 majors. This despite the fact that the US Open was held on clay for 3 years when Borg was a favorite to win.
And that everyone has their own perspective on greatness, and what 'peak performance' means.
But I'll also say you're loony bins to think Laurie Doherty is the greatest tennis player of all-time. Loony! It's really small apples and mega sized oranges that you're trying to compare. Or basically that Laurie was a big sized fish in a very small pond of tennis players. And the fact that he gobbled up all the small fishes he swam with entitles him to be the greatest of them all. When in reality, if he was around today, a mid level college player would thrash him, easily.
And Borg's record is again overrated. Let's not forget, Borg routinely skipped the Australian Open. He also quit at the age of 25, because he couldn't handle losing. So his winning percentage in the majors is inflated. It just is. Unlike today's players, or even Laver, Rosewall, and many others, Borg DIDN'T put himself on the line at the 4 major championships. He also failed to win the US Open, still regarded as the second biggest of the 4 majors. This despite the fact that the US Open was held on clay for 3 years when Borg was a favorite to win.
jeffreyneave
Rookie
1958 rankings
We will havve to agree to disagree. First I count the Aussie pro as a major because they are the four majors of today. It was not often playyed in the 1950's and 60's but when it attracts the best players (it had the top five in 1958) and had the best of five sets for the last 2 rounds i feel it counts as a fourth major. I probably count the New York Champions event as Gonzales' major because Rosewall and sedgman (the other top 3 players) were there and not the us pro as they were absent.
Secondly I do not count one set matches, so Gonzles performances there do not count to world rankings. No one counted world team tennis one set matches towards 1970s world rankings.
Third Gonzales played 3 other 4 man events in Barcelona, Madrid and stockholm with Segura, Rosewall and Trabert not shown by McCauley; Gonzales failed to win any of them. This means Gonzales has 2 wins out of 10 events compared to Sedgman's 2 out of 6. This gives sedgman an edge not just based on the Aussie pro as a major plus he has the head to head advantage 4-2 including winning both best of 5 set matches which is important.
When you put all these factors in to a points system based on the pro points system of 1959, sedgman emerges as clear winner.
jeffrey
We will havve to agree to disagree. First I count the Aussie pro as a major because they are the four majors of today. It was not often playyed in the 1950's and 60's but when it attracts the best players (it had the top five in 1958) and had the best of five sets for the last 2 rounds i feel it counts as a fourth major. I probably count the New York Champions event as Gonzales' major because Rosewall and sedgman (the other top 3 players) were there and not the us pro as they were absent.
Secondly I do not count one set matches, so Gonzles performances there do not count to world rankings. No one counted world team tennis one set matches towards 1970s world rankings.
Third Gonzales played 3 other 4 man events in Barcelona, Madrid and stockholm with Segura, Rosewall and Trabert not shown by McCauley; Gonzales failed to win any of them. This means Gonzales has 2 wins out of 10 events compared to Sedgman's 2 out of 6. This gives sedgman an edge not just based on the Aussie pro as a major plus he has the head to head advantage 4-2 including winning both best of 5 set matches which is important.
When you put all these factors in to a points system based on the pro points system of 1959, sedgman emerges as clear winner.
jeffrey
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
John, this thread is simply the best article I have ever read on the internet. My hat is off to you good sir.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Oscar was pretty incredible. I read in Oscar's book that he never even considered anything like triple doubles. Oscar was just a great winner who could do anything.
Wilt wrote in one of his books that in the year he (Wilt) led the league in assists (Yes a center led the league in assists. I know you know that Limpinhitter but that was to inform people here who may not know.) that he must have had a ton of triple doubles.
Carsomyr
Legend
He led the league in assists because he wanted to, not because it bettered his teammates. He would become frustrated when his teammates failed to convert on set-up passes.
Also, he has the peculiar distinction of probably being the only big-name player to never foul out. Why he decided to never foul out is anyone's guess, but when he started racking up fouls he just switched off on defense late in games.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's always been one of the legendary arguments in sports, Chamberlain versus Russell. Very fun to debate. Auerbach, while admitting Chamberlain was the most talented thought Russell was better.
Pc1:
First of all, thank you for your positive remarks on my post. It was very nice of you, and I am much obliged.
Second, I’m curious who you think rivals Laurie and Tilden for the best of the pre-WWII era. The players who sometimes get named are Budge, Cochet, Lacoste, Vines, Reggie Doherty, William Renshaw, and Anthony Wilding. My feeling is that the first five of those guys didn’t prove their dominance over the world’s best players as thoroughly and/or for as long (in some cases due to circumstances outside their control) as did Laurie and Tilden. William Renshaw just didn’t play enough: sometimes only one match per year. I’ve always been intrigued by Wilding, but I don’t think that even he sustained quite the dominance of Laurie or Tilden (in part, perhaps, due to having other employment during some of his prime years).
Finally, you’re right that it’s possible that some eras could have been better than others. If an all-knowing, perfectly objective observer were making a GOAT list, he or she would take that into account. But for those of us who are not all-knowing and perfectly objective, it’s very difficult to decide which eras are better and which are worse. It’s hardly possible to read anything in these forums without encountering ferocious disagreement on exactly this question. Some people say that the 1950s or 1960s were the best; others say it was Borg’s era in the 1970s; still others argue for the Mac/Connors/Lendl era of the 1980s; then there are the Sampras/Agassi supporters who argue for the 1990s; and of course many people favor the Federer/Nadal era of the 2000s. Why do you think there’s so much disagreement, and why is it more rare to hear people arguing for the Kramer era (1940s), or the Budge era (1930s), or the Tilden era (1920s), or the Wilding era (1910s), or the Doherty era (1900s)?
What I think is that people are attached to certain players they rooted for, and that it’s almost impossible for any of us to overcome those attachments, so we find ourselves inclined to argue for what would help out our preferred players in the GOAT accounting. The only way to avoid that, I believe, is to rule out the argument that any era is better than any other era.
Thanks again for the enjoyable dialogue.
First of all, thank you for your positive remarks on my post. It was very nice of you, and I am much obliged.
Second, I’m curious who you think rivals Laurie and Tilden for the best of the pre-WWII era. The players who sometimes get named are Budge, Cochet, Lacoste, Vines, Reggie Doherty, William Renshaw, and Anthony Wilding. My feeling is that the first five of those guys didn’t prove their dominance over the world’s best players as thoroughly and/or for as long (in some cases due to circumstances outside their control) as did Laurie and Tilden. William Renshaw just didn’t play enough: sometimes only one match per year. I’ve always been intrigued by Wilding, but I don’t think that even he sustained quite the dominance of Laurie or Tilden (in part, perhaps, due to having other employment during some of his prime years).
Finally, you’re right that it’s possible that some eras could have been better than others. If an all-knowing, perfectly objective observer were making a GOAT list, he or she would take that into account. But for those of us who are not all-knowing and perfectly objective, it’s very difficult to decide which eras are better and which are worse. It’s hardly possible to read anything in these forums without encountering ferocious disagreement on exactly this question. Some people say that the 1950s or 1960s were the best; others say it was Borg’s era in the 1970s; still others argue for the Mac/Connors/Lendl era of the 1980s; then there are the Sampras/Agassi supporters who argue for the 1990s; and of course many people favor the Federer/Nadal era of the 2000s. Why do you think there’s so much disagreement, and why is it more rare to hear people arguing for the Kramer era (1940s), or the Budge era (1930s), or the Tilden era (1920s), or the Wilding era (1910s), or the Doherty era (1900s)?
What I think is that people are attached to certain players they rooted for, and that it’s almost impossible for any of us to overcome those attachments, so we find ourselves inclined to argue for what would help out our preferred players in the GOAT accounting. The only way to avoid that, I believe, is to rule out the argument that any era is better than any other era.
Thanks again for the enjoyable dialogue.
RJ,
I showed your comment to my wife, who said she was proud of me. Thank you!
John
pc1
G.O.A.T.
John123,
Great post.
My gut feeling is essentially the same as what you wrote, that the H L Doherty and Bill Tilden are the two best pre WW II players and arguably the best ever. To say they could not compete not is an assumption that cannot be proved or unproved.
Let's look at the great Bill Tilden. From all accounts Tilden was a super athlete and almost obsessive in his study of tennis technique and styles. He was taller than Federer I believe and approximately the same size as Rafael Nadal. He was fast with excellent footwork and by the standards of his time he was superb in all strokes with the possible exception of the volley in which he was considered okay.
Is there any reason to think that Tilden couldn't hit a serve in excess of 120 mph today when Justine Henin at all of 5'5" tall can hit a serve at 120 mph? I have no doubt he could serve with the fastest of servers today.
Would his strokes stand up to todays game? That's a point that is constantly debated over and over again and will never be resolved until someone invents a time machine to bring Bill Tilden at age 28 to the year 2011. I would think that Tilden, if given the same mind and obsession toward tennis would have adapted his game to whatever he needed to do to win. There was a famous story in which Bill Tilden was practicing with Fred Perry and I think Tilden was close or about fifty years old. He told Perry to hit a shot to his forehand a bit short and wide and Tilden ran and returned it with the same style that Perry would hit his forehand. He told Perry in watching him over the years that he felt that using Perry's style of forehand was the best way to return that shot and he felt he wouldn't be a complete player unless he learned that. It's a great story and shows how Tilden was willing to adapt and learn. Some players play the same losing game over and over again against the same opponent. I think a Tilden would change his game or learn a way to at least try to defeat an opponent that was bothering him.
Yes Wilding intrigues me also but I would tend to agree with your points on him generally speaking.
I don't think the others you mentioned, including Don Budge can compare with the HL and Tilden's record.
I think the reason there are fewer argument for the Budge, Kramer, Gonzalez eras is obvious, fewer people have seen them.
Actually I feel if you haven't seen them then you should do your best to study their records and try to see videos of them. You cannot just rule them out simply because they played in an era you have not seen.
If someone told me Don Budge was the best they had ever seen and I knew nothing of him I wouldn't say the person was definitely wrong. I would research as much as I could on Budge before giving an answer.
On a different note John123, nice discussion on basketball too in this thread.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
A small nit to pick. I would argue that Laver was world no. 1 for 7 straight years (1964-70), not 5. Gonzales was undisputed world no. 1 for only 4 years 1954-57. His other years he tied with Sedgman, Rosewall, or Hoad.
1952—Gonzales/Sedgman
1953—Kramer(6)/Segura(2)
1954—Gonzales
1955—Gonzales
1956—Gonzales
1957—Gonzales
1958—Gonzales/Sedgman(2)
1959—Gonzales/Hoad
1960—Gonzales(8 )/Rosewall
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver
Last edited:
Hoodjem,
The second sentence of my Laver entry said this: "he was the world’s best player for at least five years (1965-1969), while also being at or very near the top in 1964 and 1970-1971."
I believe that Gonzales was the world's best player for longer than Laver was, but that's been analyzed endlessly in other threads, with arguments made on both sides.
For GOAT purposes, it doesn't matter much: duration of time at #1 is only one criterion for GOAT. The other main criteria for me are how dominant a player was while #1 (Bill Tilden in 1921 is not the same as Lleyton Hewitt in 2002) and how his achievements compare to those of his contemporaries and to those of champions of nearby eras.
Regards,
John
The second sentence of my Laver entry said this: "he was the world’s best player for at least five years (1965-1969), while also being at or very near the top in 1964 and 1970-1971."
I believe that Gonzales was the world's best player for longer than Laver was, but that's been analyzed endlessly in other threads, with arguments made on both sides.
For GOAT purposes, it doesn't matter much: duration of time at #1 is only one criterion for GOAT. The other main criteria for me are how dominant a player was while #1 (Bill Tilden in 1921 is not the same as Lleyton Hewitt in 2002) and how his achievements compare to those of his contemporaries and to those of champions of nearby eras.
Regards,
John
The explanation I gave at the beginning of my Laver entry was this: "I don’t value his amateur slam in 1962 too highly for GOAT purposes because Laver wasn’t the world’s best player, nor did he have to beat the best, when he achieved it."
I don't think anything in that sentence is particularly controversial. If you have a problem with it, though, I'm all ears.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I do! Kramer, himself a candidate for greatest player ever, called Budge the greatest player ever! Obviously, I didn't see him in his prime, but (as you probably know from previous posts), I went to his tennis camp in 1974 and saw him beat the hell out of his D1 level counselor/staff (one set at a time). His game was what old school, textbook perfect, tennis technique was based on. When I saw him at the age of 59 his groundies and serve were still world class, as good as anyone in the game.
A funny story. When he found out that I had told some of the counselors that I thought Rod Laver was the greatest ever, Budge told me himself that he split sets with Rod Laver in an exo the year before. After seeing him play, I believed him.
I agree that to a large part its a matter of who you grew up watching and either rooting for or against. Its like James Bond movies....generally speaking, the actor you grew up watching as James Bond is the one you prefer.
(Its got to be Sean Connery, although I do think that Daniel Craig is more like the Bond in the Ian Fleming books)
Thanks for this thread, its really interesting.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'm not going to debate Budge's greatness with you but Budge won a practice set with Laver, not an exo in 1962. People tend to experiment and take it a little easier in practice sets over even an exhibition.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Budge tended to exaggerate the truth. It's a well known story that Budge played a few practice sets with Laver in 1962 before Laver was about to complete his first Grand Slam. I doubt if Budge played Laver in 1973 at age 58.
I saw Budge in an interview on television in New York and he was discussing a match at the US Open with a reporter. It was probably sometime in the mid 1980's I would guess. Budge said the reason the player lost was because he didn't serve and volley enough. So this reporter asked Budge if he used to serve and volley, Budge hesitated, paused and eventually said he serve and volleyed about half the time. Anyone who knew about Don Budge knew Budge never served and volleyed. Budge would rally and go to the net on strong approach shots. Segura said that Budge had too long a swing to serve and volley. I'm sure he must have done it at times but half the time?? He definitely did not do that.
Budge in 1954 when he was 39 played on a tour with Gonzalez, Sedgman and Segura. Gonzalez won the tour easily and Budge won just a few matches. They all played about 40 to 50 matches. Even at 39 Budge wasn't really competitive with the top players.
I've given reasons in the past why I don't include Budge but I don't feel like writing it out now. Too lazy and too tired now. I will write this however, when I first starting researching the records of the legends of tennis, many more than lived up to their legends and some did not. I expected Budge to have a record similar to Tilden's. It was very good but not close to Tilden's or Laver's or Rosewall's to name a few in my opinion. Don't get me wrong Budge had an excellent record but it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
PC, Budge's wife confirmed that he in fact played an exo with Laver in 1973 and that Budge took a set off of Laver in that exo. [Shrug!]. I've never before read or heard that Budge was a liar. I have to say your allegations are quite shocking to me. I hope you'll understand that the notion that Don Budge looked me in the eye and told me something (that his wife confirmed), that was an outright falsehood, is a little hard to swallow. After watching him dismantle 20+ year old D1 players, I'm inclined to believe Budge.
