A GOAT list giving each era its due
- Thread starter John123
- Start date
Come on. Laver against the amateur was a very small number of players. You cannot conveniently ignore that. That's like randomly remove 50% of the pool today and let Federer compete. Who knows, he could win 25+ slams. But I'm pretty sure he would get docked for all of those wins.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I don't know the exact number. If you have them, tell me.
There's 2 circuits before the open era. My point is how about having two circuits today and let Fed compete on one of the circuit. Wouldn't that makes it easier for Roger? Sure it does.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Honestly it depends on the circuit, if one circuit has Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Ferrer and Tsonga it would be a lot tougher.
So you have to ask yourself objectively, who would be the best player in this type of circuit? Would it be Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray or someone else? Let's say Federer and Nadal are always seeded first and second, who would win the finals most of the time? Could these guys get to the final against 2011 Djokovic who is in their way?
Incidentally that's the circuit Laver played in from 1963 to 1967 with Rosewall, Gimeno, Gonzalez, Hoad, Trabert, Cooper, Sedgman, Segura who are all top major tournament winners and legends. It was a tour of living legends who were fantastic players. Now I don't care if anyone says modern players are stronger, relatively speaking, these guys accomplished more than the group above overall in my opinion.
In this imposing type of company, Laver won the Pro Grand Slam in 1967. That's is perhaps his greatest accomplishment, even over the Open Grand Slam.
To answer your question about Laver's 1962 Grand Slam, of course it is not of the same level as the 1969 Grand Slam but he did play Roy Emerson, Santana, Bob Hewitt, Neal Fraser, Osuna, Mulligan among others during this Grand Slam. They really were essentially pros and amateur in name only. These players were top notch pros in reality but not the level of Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad and company but frankly almost no one if any are of that quality.
Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have won many a tournament without all the top players playing and no one takes away the tournaments won in their records because they didn't have the best playing in that tournament. It happens.
Last edited:
NonP
Legend
I know this thread is old, but just wanted to clarify my comment about Wilt and double-teams. What I meant to say was that double-teaming wasn't allowed when Wilt was filling up the stat sheets like crazy in his early seasons, not during his entire career. Here's the relevant passage from the article I referenced upthread (emphasis mine):
And I've read quotes to that effect from other reliable sources. In any case the point was that the defense back then wasn't quite as sophisticated and suffocating as it'd become in succeeding generations, in terms of double-teams, top-notch bigs, weak-side help, etc.
Here's the full article (on Shaq's legacy) if you're interested:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/...ld-have-been-greater-if-he-stayed-slim-060111
Rosen belongs to that exceedingly rare breed: a pundit who does know what he's talking about, a true expert in his field. Makes you wish there were a MSM counterpart in tennis.
As an aside, Shaq, along with MJ and other all-time greats, is proof that athletes don't necessarily get better with time. Seriously, anyone who thinks Dwight is equal or let alone superior to Shaq as a center simply doesn't know basketball. And who can forget Pippen having to eat crow after his MJ-LeBron comparison? Yet more proof that players (even a great one in this case) can be just as clueless as fans and armchair critics.
And one more thing:
We really should take these "facts" (especially those about famous people) with a big grain of salt. I don't mean to say this is what Limpin did, but sometimes we think numbers give them more legitimacy, when it's still anecdotes we're dealing with. Case in point: some people still believe Borg had a freakishly low resting heart rate, even though Wikipedia includes quotes from his own autobio that suggest otherwise. (BTW I actually added that bit to the Wiki article. It's been modified and shuffled around since, but most of it remains intact.)
This is not to say either Wilt or Borg was a klutz, of course. By all accounts both were extraordinary athletes, just not the superheroes they're often made out to be.
And I've read quotes to that effect from other reliable sources. In any case the point was that the defense back then wasn't quite as sophisticated and suffocating as it'd become in succeeding generations, in terms of double-teams, top-notch bigs, weak-side help, etc.
Here's the full article (on Shaq's legacy) if you're interested:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/...ld-have-been-greater-if-he-stayed-slim-060111
Rosen belongs to that exceedingly rare breed: a pundit who does know what he's talking about, a true expert in his field. Makes you wish there were a MSM counterpart in tennis.
As an aside, Shaq, along with MJ and other all-time greats, is proof that athletes don't necessarily get better with time. Seriously, anyone who thinks Dwight is equal or let alone superior to Shaq as a center simply doesn't know basketball. And who can forget Pippen having to eat crow after his MJ-LeBron comparison? Yet more proof that players (even a great one in this case) can be just as clueless as fans and armchair critics.
And one more thing:
We really should take these "facts" (especially those about famous people) with a big grain of salt. I don't mean to say this is what Limpin did, but sometimes we think numbers give them more legitimacy, when it's still anecdotes we're dealing with. Case in point: some people still believe Borg had a freakishly low resting heart rate, even though Wikipedia includes quotes from his own autobio that suggest otherwise. (BTW I actually added that bit to the Wiki article. It's been modified and shuffled around since, but most of it remains intact.)
This is not to say either Wilt or Borg was a klutz, of course. By all accounts both were extraordinary athletes, just not the superheroes they're often made out to be.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Wilt wasn't a klutz? How generous of you!
Wilt's athletic feats, on and off the basketball court, speak for themselves. BTW, how many 7'1" centers have you seen grab a rebound, fast brake down the court themselves, dribbling at full stride, and make a behind-the-back assist in the paint for a goal? To me, Wilt was a 7'1" version of MJ. There have been a hand full of basketball players that were just athletically superior to all others. Julius Erving, MJ and Wilt were among them.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
It´s an interesting and well argued ranking but you left out Lew Hoad.Hoad, all his peers from Sedgman to Gonzales or Laver will tell you that, on his day, he was nearly unbeatable.He was the most dominating one match player that possibly existed.In terms of long time career, it´s true that, when he was at his peak, he got broken down by injuries and was never half the player he loomed.This is probably the most unfortunated case of tennis greatness lost.I feel bad he is so overlooked over this pages, but he was a true wonder to witness.
NonP
Legend
No doubt Wilt was quite an athletic specimen, but for the record, not everyone ranks him among the top 5 of all time. I agree with Rosen that Russell, Kareem and Shaq all rank above him, and arguably Hakeem, too. (IMO it makes no sense to compare guards and bigs together. Just too different skill sets involved.)
As I briefly noted earlier, Pippen recently caught flak for suggesting (and later trying to backtrack from it) LeBron might be even better than MJ, but he might as well have compared LB to Wilt: both are incredible talents and obviously tremendous athletes who can dominate the game like few others before or since, but have a long history of being unreliable in the clutch. In other words they're great frontrunners who fill up the stat sheets but often fail to show up down the stretch. More and more pundits have been making this comparison given LeBron's recent debacles, but a small number of astute observers were pointing out these similarities a long time ago. In fact there's no way I'd pick either player for my team over MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe, and that's just off the top of my head.
It's really fascinating how much of a sport has to do with something other than what we usually consider talent. Take Carmelo, another massive underachiever in the NBA today. Here's a guy who's universally acknowledged to be the most versatile scorer in the league, and who unlike LeBron can actually play 1st-rate defense, as he showed in his first game as a Knick against the Heat last season, where he shut LeBron down cold. But that Melo shows up only once every month, if at all. Barkley was similar in that regard.
And there's Garnett, a bigmouth who can't back up his "tough" talk when it counts most, as we saw in the '10 and even the '08 finals. And K. Malone, who didn't quite live up to his "Mailman" reputation especially from the FT line. And Iverson, whose infamous line about practice needs no further explanation, and who should've tried harder to learn the trade of a PG rather than turn himself into a ball-hogging SG he eventually became.
Most of these guys were tremendous talents who could and did post eye-popping numbers, but they all lacked what the true greats like MJ, Russell, Magic and Kobe had: the proverbial backbone that made 'em just refuse to lose. And that's why the latter group boast more championships. It ain't just 'cause of the teammates, as the simplistic saying goes.
Sorry for the rambling. As you can see basketball is my favorite sport along with tennis.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
No doubt Wilt was quite an athletic specimen, but for the record, not everyone ranks him among the top 5 of all time. I agree with Rosen that Russell, Kareem and Shaq all rank above him, and arguably Hakeem, too. (IMO it makes no sense to compare guards and bigs together. Just too different skill sets involved.)
As I briefly noted earlier, Pippen recently caught flak for suggesting (and later trying to backtrack from it) LeBron might be even better than MJ, but he might as well have compared LB to Wilt: both are incredible talents and obviously tremendous athletes who can dominate the game like few others before or since, but have a long history of being unreliable in the clutch. In other words they're great frontrunners who fill up the stat sheets but often fail to show up down the stretch. More and more pundits have been making this comparison given LeBron's recent debacles, but a small number of astute observers were pointing out these similarities a long time ago. In fact there's no way I'd pick either player for my team over MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan or Kobe, and that's just off the top of my head.
It's really fascinating how much of a sport has to do with something other than what we usually consider talent. Take Carmelo, another massive underachiever in the NBA today. Here's a guy who's universally acknowledged to be the most versatile scorer in the league, and who unlike LeBron can actually play 1st-rate defense, as he showed in his first game as a Knick against the Heat last season, where he shut LeBron down cold. But that Melo shows up only once every month, if at all. Barkley was similar in that regard.
And there's Garnett, a bigmouth who can't back up his "tough" talk when it counts most, as we saw in the '10 and even the '08 finals. And K. Malone, who didn't quite live up to his "Mailman" reputation especially from the FT line. And Iverson, whose infamous line about practice needs no further explanation, and who should've tried harder to learn the trade of a PG rather than turn himself into a ball-hogging SG he eventually became.
Most of these guys were tremendous talents who could and did post eye-popping numbers, but they all lacked what the true greats like MJ, Russell, Magic and Kobe had: the proverbial backbone that made 'em just refuse to lose. And that's why the latter group boast more championships. It ain't just 'cause of the teammates, as the simplistic saying goes.
Sorry for the rambling. As you can see basketball is my favorite sport along with tennis.
Jerry West, obviously a great basketball expert and GM once said that Wilt was better than Russell but for one game Russell was better. Now West may be partial since he was Wilt's teammate for years.
Double-teaming was never disallowed. Google "NBA rules history" and click on the cached version of the first webpage listed. What Charley Rosen wrote in that piece is wrong, and I'd be curious to see those other reliable sources (or any sources) who say that double-teaming was ever illegal in the NBA.
Carsomyr
Legend
When was this? In Goliath: The Wilt Chamberlain Story, Jerry West said the following: "I don't want to rap Wilt because I only believe Russell was better, and I really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, you had to adjust to him." Now, this book was written in the mid-late-70s and West is certainly free to change his mind, but I'd rather take his opinion when the memories of his playing career are still fresh in his mind.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think he said this in the eighties or early 1990's but I'm not certain of the time.
NonP
Legend
pc1, as I'm sure you know, players say all kinds of stuff all the time. Even an all-time great like West, who also happens to be a GM and a pundit. Apart from the quote Carsomyr culled from Goliath, I also remember West commentating before a Magic-Bird game, when he declared Oscar the best player ever. Now, granted Oscar was sitting next to him and he might have been paying mere lip service, but then just last year he was saying LeBron had surpassed Kobe, which, to be fair, wasn't exactly a crazy statement, given what had transpired in the regular season. Well, but not so fast: just a few weeks later, the playoffs--the time of the year that separates the contenders from the pretenders--showed quite conclusively how wrong he was. And of course there was Pippen's more recent faux pas.
We really should be careful not to take any "expert" commentary at face value. Even the Wests and Pippens of the world are human, with their own share of follies and biases. MJ is another case in point, as his record as a GM has been a mixed bag at best. And it gets worse once they're playing the pundit, with all the PR and corporate constraints that come with the megaphone.
Not sure which site you're referring to, but I think I know what you're talking about. If my guess is correct, the rule simply stated that only the player with the ball might be double-teamed from the weak side. It doesn't tells us whether double-teaming was ever illegal in the NBA.
Anyway I think we're missing the forest for the trees here. Again, even if double-teams had been a staple of the game from the start, it's still legitimate to point out that the defense in Wilt's early years wasn't as developed as in later generations, and to ask if his unreliability in the clutch kept him from achieving even more.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I agree with you on this.
