lol, have you considered that maybe you amaze easily gorecki.
You should look into that.
A realistic GOAT what if
- Thread starter timeyer
- Start date
lol, have you considered that maybe you amaze easily gorecki.
You should look into that.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
lol, have you considered that maybe you amaze easily gorecki.
what.. they can do worst?
what.. they can do worst?
This is the internet. As a great man once said: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." just kidding.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
This is the internet. As a great man once said: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." just kidding.
lol...
But lets be honest. what in heavens sake makes someone consider Rafael Nadal today (10/03/2009) a better player than Rod Laver, Sampras, Federer, Emerson, Borg, Tilden, Budge....
right now, not so much, but he's already close to the agassi level and the future looks bright.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
no questions on that...
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
A calendar slam on all surfaces would make him the GOOP whether you like it or not. It is so hard to do that noone has done it since the beginning of hard courts. Laver did it on only 2 surfaces, sorry but not the same.
klementine
Hall of Fame
For me it's all about the ride... and not so much the destination.
I'm only 29y.o. and can appreciate what Laver, Borg, Connors and Becker did.
I started watching and playing in '88- when Agassi went from #25 - #3 by the end of the year.
I watched as Sampras go from #65- #5 in 1990.
As I said before, for me it's all about the ride and not the destination.
For my money, I have never witnessed any player dominate as Federer did between 2004-07.
I don't know about G.O.A.T-- but he was unstoppable during that stretch.
I don't know how the competition was during Laver's era, but for one man to win calendar slams, twice.-- correct me if I'm wrong-- competition could not have been that great.
I'm only 29y.o. and can appreciate what Laver, Borg, Connors and Becker did.
I started watching and playing in '88- when Agassi went from #25 - #3 by the end of the year.
I watched as Sampras go from #65- #5 in 1990.
As I said before, for me it's all about the ride and not the destination.
For my money, I have never witnessed any player dominate as Federer did between 2004-07.
I don't know about G.O.A.T-- but he was unstoppable during that stretch.
I don't know how the competition was during Laver's era, but for one man to win calendar slams, twice.-- correct me if I'm wrong-- competition could not have been that great.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
so what? Nadal wont do it (if he does) with a 65 sq inch wood frame with natural gut and plimpsol shoes...
see how that is a knife that cuts both ways?
the surface bs is flat out not acceptable. he won in the surfaces of it's time...
and we are sticking to slams... lets take a look at all those "as big as Slams" events he won (yes.. there wer other events back in the day)...
I am not sure it would. Sure it's historically hard, but so is achieving 14 grand slams. Do you have a method for figuring out which is harder given a set of competitors and playing conditions?
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
where is the frank thomas quote from? I used to like watching him play baseball, if it's the same guy.
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
you were reading my signature
i was selling a pair of bnib Frank Thomas sneakers... (yes... the big hurt guy) very rare. i have to change my sig... it's outdated! i still have another pair though!
you were reading my signature
i was selling a pair of bnib Frank Thomas sneakers... (yes... the big hurt guy) very rare. i have to change my sig... it's outdated! i still have another pair though!
the big hurt, lol. he was a real monster for a while, he was on some fun white sox teams in the 90s.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Winning a lot of slams is very hard but a few have done it (Sampras, Federer, Borg in open era).
Winning 3 slams a year is also very rare but 3 players have done it: Connors, Wilander and Federer. (none of them did it on 3 different surfaces by the way, Connors did it on 1, Wilander and Federer on 2).
Now winning all 4: there's only 1 guy and it was a long time ago- just that would be enough to make it exciting- but he did it on only 2 surfaces.
Winning all 4 on 3 different surfaces: noone. It hasn't been done. It's like gold you know, the rarest something is, the most precious it becomes. To me that's the one feat I would like to see in my lifetime. I want to see someone do something that has never been done. To me all 4 on all surfaces in a year is more impressive than just one more or less slam at the end of your career.
Last edited:
Maybe, but that's just your intuition about what is more rare, which might be very wrong here. Just, look at how hard federer is now finding it to reach 14.Borg stopped cold at 11 and after that no one is even close.
Just like federer is now close to 14, federer also had a decent chance at getting all 4 in one year (2005 imo, 2 matches away). IIRC wilander was also close one year (3 matches away).
egn
Hall of Fame
---Nadal Arguments
-So wait Agassi is GOAT? If he finishes 9 slams 1 of each..sorry no GOAT. Could play all surfaces but no longevity and it would be limited dominance.
-Calendar slam definitely ups it but if he wins all 4 this year then never wins another one...sorry
---A few Federer agruements.
-Davis Cup should not be faulted to him...his best years Swiss lacked talent.
-Fed in my opinion does not need a winning record because Nadal is just so dominant on clay and never faced Fed on HC consistently during his best years Fed's hope is to finish something like this
4-2 Grass
7-4 HC
7-14 Clay
18-20 favor Nadal
He would have a losing record, but it would be close and he would be better on 2 surfaces..however thats probably not happening
---Open to Non Open Era
-Comparing across the two eras is so difficult. There are more players now, then there were in the 20s, the game has changed a lot even from the 50s. You can't play deep into your 30s anymore or hell late 20s is the end usually of most players. Laver could play dominately for 10-15 years...career's today are that long due to the new technology. You have more dominant teens and less elder players. I like to break the two eras up. 70s on the game started to evolve fast and by the 80s it had taken on a different image and form than the 60s. Comparing Tilden to Federer or Perry to Federer and Sampras is so difficult. Through Pancho Gonzalez into the mix and things are worse.
edmondsm
Legend
Not GOAT level tennis. Go look up some of the guys Laver was playing. Many players, even the guys he played in some GS finals, were not full time tennis pros. How can you compare Fed and Sampras (who never played anyone who wasn't a touring tennis pro) to Laver. It's inconceivable to me.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Laver was a great player in his own right. Best player of the 60s. However, I agree with you he wasn't at the same level as Sampras and Federer. Many of Laver's slams were won during the Amateur era.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
How is it my intuition that something has never been done? It's a fact. Nobody has done the grand slam on the 3 surfaces, not once, not twice, not 14 times, never! That's not an intuition, that's a plain fact and I'd love to see it done one day...
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Nadal would have been #1 during some of those years if it hadn't been for Roger. He can't help it if he's playing in the same era as the GOAT.
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
Laver is the GOAT. It's inconeivable to me how you can consider Sampras for example? He relied on one part of his game (the GOAT serve). He was playing on super fast grass for lots of his wins. And as for Nadal. Send him back to the 60's against Laver, give him a wooden racquet, don't let him have a rest every point, energy drinks etc etc. he would lose. In fact with his style of shot, he would probably frame the ball all the time
abmk
Bionic Poster
Maybe**, but which are the slams he would have won without roger around ? Only wimbledon 2007 . Wimbledon 2006, he wasn't yet that great on grass .. I could go more in detail into this, but I don't think its necessary..
** Federer's absence would've helped hewitt and roddick a LOT more than rafa
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Are you serious? Nadal, would have won Wimbledon 2006 for sure. I checked his stats for that year, he had won 80 straight service games. If it hadn't been for Roger he would have played Bjorkman in the finals.
It would be interesting to see done, no doubt. But isn't the interesting question, what is harder to do/more impressive?. Sampras got 14, while no one has gotten all 4 on all surfaces. Does that imply anything about the ease of doing either thing? Maybe sampras was just talented enough that he could do it, while for the typical person it's harder to get 14 than all 4 in one year. All I am saying is that no one really has a good sense ex-ante which of those things is harder to accomplish.
Last edited:
Eh, not really. Laver's opponents played with the same equipment, so he was not at a disadvantage.
Laver is the GOAT. It's inconeivable to me how you can consider Sampras for example? He relied on one part of his game (the GOAT serve). He was playing on super fast grass for lots of his wins. And as for Nadal. Send him back to the 60's against Laver, give him a wooden racquet, don't let him have a rest every point, energy drinks etc etc. he would lose. In fact with his style of shot, he would probably frame the ball all the time
sampras relied on four parts of his game, his serve, his forehand, his volleys and his athleticism. Guys who rely on their serve are karlovic, phillipoussis, Isner types and they usually lose in 3rd rounds of whatever slam they are playing in. Notice that sampras has 14 slams and karlovic/philipoussis/isner have 0 slams between them.
Nadal is born with some extraordinary natural gifts: racquet speed, hands/ball control, speed, endurance. He would be fine in any era. The "style of shot" is a function of the technology that is available, if you have him play with a wooden racquet his "style of shot" would be different. Now this doesn't always have to be true, it's possible that changes in racquets have allowed some players to rise to the top of the pro ranks that wouldn't have previously. But I wouldn't guess that nadal was one of these guys, imo he would be great in any era.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Laver is the GOAT. It's inconeivable to me how you can consider Sampras for example? He relied on one part of his game (the GOAT serve). He was playing on super fast grass for lots of his wins. And as for Nadal. Send him back to the 60's against Laver, give him a wooden racquet, don't let him have a rest every point, energy drinks etc etc. he would lose. In fact with his style of shot, he would probably frame the ball all the time
Sampras grew up with wood, so I think he would be able to hold his own against Laver.
Besides, the same can be argued if you took Laver from 1969 and put him in 2009. He wouldn't stand a chance against any top 10 player.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Well, Sampras has done the 14 and Federer is very, very close to that number and may conceivably get 15 or more. That's already 2 players who managed to get around 15 slams. I'm not saying it's easy, I have the utmost respect for that record but there's got to be a reason why noone has pulled the 4 slams in a calendar year, and to me the most logical one is that it's the most difficult thing to do.
Don't forget also that, sure, 14 or 15 slams are amazing but Agassi won 17 masters for example while Connors won more than 100 tournaments overall and Lendl almost 100. So I would say winning a lot of tournaments seems more manageable (especially if it's spread over a long career) than a yearly domination that would include all 4 slams.
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
He really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!
Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10
Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
He may be the GOAT but not the GOOP IMOHe really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!
Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10
Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT
SaintClaires
Banned
He really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!
Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10
Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT
What is a Goose and a Goop?
If we are making up words, then I would say that Nadal is a JOOPY.
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
I found out what a GOOP is earlier in this thread! Read the thread and you too will find out
I came up with the GOOSE, see if you can work out what it is?
SaintClaires
Banned
I found out what a GOOP is earlier in this thread! Read the thread and you too will find out
I came up with the GOOSE, see if you can work out what it is?
Here's my guess:
GOOSE: Gilles Operates On Simple Exercises
Am I close?
GameSampras
Banned
The game has changed far too much to come up with a truly objective position on the undisputed GOAT. You cant go by just slams. The GS count didnt even begin being important until Sampras was chasing EMerson's record. Laver didnt get the slams on the rebound ace, hardcourts etc. It was clay and grass. Not fair to players like Andre and Pete (especially Dre) who had to manage the Career Slam on 4 legit polarized surfaces. A tougher feat than what Laver accomplished IMO. Not to mention what Nadal is accomplishing. (Sorry Nadal fans). THe death of the serve-volley attackers. The old Wimbeldon grass gone. The carpet gone. The homogenized surfaces along with homogenized player where grinders can win every slam. BEfore this wasnt the case. The diversity of surfaces and players would not allow this. T
At the end of the day people are present their own opinions with subjective ideas to suit their own cases of their guy.
All you can say for sure with a true degree of objectiveness is each has it's player. When you start spreading it out acrossed eras, thats where the subjectiveness begins
At the end of the day people are present their own opinions with subjective ideas to suit their own cases of their guy.
All you can say for sure with a true degree of objectiveness is each has it's player. When you start spreading it out acrossed eras, thats where the subjectiveness begins
egn
Hall of Fame
This right here should simply be end of thread. Nothing else needs to be said.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
He really would mate, he would adapt to modern tennis!!!
Look comparing eras is very difficult, you can only look at how they did against other players from their own time. Nadal might turn out to be the GOAT, but he will need to continue at the same level for at least another 5 years, maybe 10
Until then Laver is without a doubt a GOOSE and a GOOP, and in my opinion the GOAT
Nope, no way. If you take Laver from 1969 and brought him to the tour today he would never be able to adapt. Rod, would already 30/31 years old (looking at retirement from pro tennis) and would have to deal with fast servers, different players, and a much different game from the one that he left 40 years ago.
It takes a long time to be able to make the wood to graphite transition, especially at the pro level. Laver wouldn't be able to do it.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
The mere fact that Laver was playing at the top of the game at age 31 is proof enough that he could compete in any era, especially if considered during his prime years.
Laver in his prime in any era is a winner.
You keep repeating this wood to graphite being a 'long' transition. And yet, you've admitted you've never played with a wood racket. As someone who has played with wood at a competitive level in the last 5 years, and still hits with wood your assumption is about as far off base as it can be. There is no 'long' transition from wood to graphite.
jimbo333
Hall of Fame
I agree completely
Going from wood to graphite is easy. It's going the other way that is difficult. As I said earlier, Nadal would have to completely change his massive Topspin heavy shot with a wood racquet, he actually would have kept framing the ball!!!
Of course Laver would have adapted to the modern game, if he had started with a graphite racquet at the age of 15
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I agree completely
Going from wood to graphite is easy. It's going the other way that is difficult. As I said earlier, Nadal would have to completely change his massive Topspin heavy shot with a wood racquet, he actually would have kept framing the ball!!!
Of course Laver would have adapted to the modern game, if he had started with a graphite racquet at the age of 15
Really & truly, Laver was no slouch when he went to a MP Pro Kennex. At 70, he's pretty dadgum good with a Babolat...
I think it should also be mentioned, in all fairness, that graphite rackets have evolved over time. When the first models were put out, they were spec-wise, copies of wood frames. Manufacturers built rackets that were alike. The first graphite models, Adila Cannon, Bancroft Scorpion, Trabert C-6, Wilson Ultra and Fansteel Graphite all weighed what wood rackets weighed. They all had the same head size.
Only over time have weights gone down and head sizes gone up. Along with that, balance points have shifted and rackets have become more polarized in terms of how they are set up. There are head light, head heavy, even, etc.
Point being that moving from wood to graphite required no change at all. As time has gone by, moving to newer models has been less intrusive because it has been a gradual shift.
But, the fact remains that I can go out and in about 30 minutes be hitting balls proficiently with a Head Vilas or Maxply Fort and then go back to the bag and pick up my AG100s.
Last edited:
Eviscerator
Banned
Correct ,,,
hi averybody, im new here. just reading the posts:
i can´t hep feeling puzzled. why so many people just bear in mind the grand slams when it comes to pick the GOAT. Come on! alhough my favourite player is rafa, i reckon Federer is already better candidate to Goat than Sampras.In fact, if Nadal weren´t around, federer would probably have 2-3 Roland Garros. So According to you, the fact that Federer couldn´t beat the best clay courter ever (he beats everybody else on clay courts apart from Nadal) keep him from being the GOAT. come on! what about the masters series and the level of tennis. He beat sampras the only time the played at Wimbledon. Ok, Sampras maybe wasn´t at his peak, but Federer wasn´t either. I reckon only American people regard Sampras over Federer, for Obvious reasons...
i can´t hep feeling puzzled. why so many people just bear in mind the grand slams when it comes to pick the GOAT. Come on! alhough my favourite player is rafa, i reckon Federer is already better candidate to Goat than Sampras.In fact, if Nadal weren´t around, federer would probably have 2-3 Roland Garros. So According to you, the fact that Federer couldn´t beat the best clay courter ever (he beats everybody else on clay courts apart from Nadal) keep him from being the GOAT. come on! what about the masters series and the level of tennis. He beat sampras the only time the played at Wimbledon. Ok, Sampras maybe wasn´t at his peak, but Federer wasn´t either. I reckon only American people regard Sampras over Federer, for Obvious reasons...
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
yes, I suppose it sounds better than a GOPOP! (Although I do like GOPOPExcellent, so we have some agreement at last that Laver is the GOAT
And by the way GOOSE is:-
Greatest Of clOSEd era
)
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
That's just your opinion. Unfortunately we are at a stalemate on this subject since Laver and Federer can't play each other.
However, I have seen videos of Laver. I consider him to be a great player with tremendous talent. With that said, I don't think he could seriously compete with the top players today. Especially, if he had to learn how to use a graphite.
Similar threads
