SublimeTennis
Professional
Seems most on this forum are very confused about the difference, there are great players that are not as successful as others, Borg for example was a great player, could have ended his career with a ton of GS's if he would have not retired at 25 and played the French, so he wasn't as successful as other players, so does this mean we wasn't as talented?
This is a HUGE POINT, because most of these GOAT threads don't take this into account. In Boxing, Marciano was 49-0, but the average age of his title opponents was 40, so most boxing experts don't rank him very high, we admire him, he did what he was supposed to do, but it was obvious that Sonny Listen or Ali would have taken him apart. Same thing with Louis, he has a "Bum of the month club", old guys, bald with beer bellies, but Louis himself was ahead of his time, a great fighter, and defended his title just shy of 12 years, so both were SUCCESSFUL, but the best? Not a chance.
Same with tennis. The hypothetical player "A" who turns pro at 18, has a winning percentage of 100% for 2 years, wins 8 GS's, then dies in a car accident, doe his lack of SUCCESS mean he wasn't the GREATEST PLAYER, see the difference?
Additionally, I wish people would learn about court speeds. Another example, if all courts since 2000 with RG clay slow, Rafa would win basically EVERY grand slam, everyone would be saying he was the greatest, but he wouldn't have been, just the greatest SLOW COURT PLAYER. Likewise, if courts were 90's or before fast courts, Fed would win them all, would that make him a better player? So we have to take that into account.
Now take away Rafa's Poly string, powerful spin racquet, slow courts, put him in the 90's or any other era, small racquet, gut strings (Low spin), fast courts, do you REALLY think he'd be in the top ten?
The ONLY way to find the GOAT is to find the BEST PLAYER, you can do a thread on the MOST SUCCESSFUL PLAYER, the Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano of Tennis, but who is the BEST PLAYER. And think big, don't just think of the last 10 years guys tennis has been around along time. So not best for THEIR TIME, but all time. Laver was the best for his time, but how would he do growing up with large racquets, poly strings, and slow courts? Would he dominate like he did in the 60's? We already know Sampras would struggle big time on slow courts, so that puts him down in the rankings.
The reason people say Fed is GOAT, is because he can play large racquets with poly on slow or fast courts, small racquets with Gut, and would be top, not necessarily best in all era's, IE I don't know if he could beat Laver with a 65" wood racquet with gut on super fast courts, but I know he'd do well.
So who is the BEST PLAYER? Not successful, and please, if you don't understand any of this don't lash out with your ignorance, just admit you don't have a clue and keep to yourself, some of us like this forum and like honest, good debate with respect.
So this is NOT most successful, so don't start shooting out stats, how many matches Conners won, it's irrelevant, Conners was SUCCESSFUL, but not the best.
So all time tournament: 8 grand slams. 4 on 60's-80's fast courts, gut strings, wood racquets, and 4 on modern slow courts, large powerful racquets, poly strings.
Who would be the overall BEST PLAYER? This is the ONLY WAY you can decide.
This is a HUGE POINT, because most of these GOAT threads don't take this into account. In Boxing, Marciano was 49-0, but the average age of his title opponents was 40, so most boxing experts don't rank him very high, we admire him, he did what he was supposed to do, but it was obvious that Sonny Listen or Ali would have taken him apart. Same thing with Louis, he has a "Bum of the month club", old guys, bald with beer bellies, but Louis himself was ahead of his time, a great fighter, and defended his title just shy of 12 years, so both were SUCCESSFUL, but the best? Not a chance.
Same with tennis. The hypothetical player "A" who turns pro at 18, has a winning percentage of 100% for 2 years, wins 8 GS's, then dies in a car accident, doe his lack of SUCCESS mean he wasn't the GREATEST PLAYER, see the difference?
Additionally, I wish people would learn about court speeds. Another example, if all courts since 2000 with RG clay slow, Rafa would win basically EVERY grand slam, everyone would be saying he was the greatest, but he wouldn't have been, just the greatest SLOW COURT PLAYER. Likewise, if courts were 90's or before fast courts, Fed would win them all, would that make him a better player? So we have to take that into account.
Now take away Rafa's Poly string, powerful spin racquet, slow courts, put him in the 90's or any other era, small racquet, gut strings (Low spin), fast courts, do you REALLY think he'd be in the top ten?
The ONLY way to find the GOAT is to find the BEST PLAYER, you can do a thread on the MOST SUCCESSFUL PLAYER, the Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano of Tennis, but who is the BEST PLAYER. And think big, don't just think of the last 10 years guys tennis has been around along time. So not best for THEIR TIME, but all time. Laver was the best for his time, but how would he do growing up with large racquets, poly strings, and slow courts? Would he dominate like he did in the 60's? We already know Sampras would struggle big time on slow courts, so that puts him down in the rankings.
The reason people say Fed is GOAT, is because he can play large racquets with poly on slow or fast courts, small racquets with Gut, and would be top, not necessarily best in all era's, IE I don't know if he could beat Laver with a 65" wood racquet with gut on super fast courts, but I know he'd do well.
So who is the BEST PLAYER? Not successful, and please, if you don't understand any of this don't lash out with your ignorance, just admit you don't have a clue and keep to yourself, some of us like this forum and like honest, good debate with respect.
So this is NOT most successful, so don't start shooting out stats, how many matches Conners won, it's irrelevant, Conners was SUCCESSFUL, but not the best.
So all time tournament: 8 grand slams. 4 on 60's-80's fast courts, gut strings, wood racquets, and 4 on modern slow courts, large powerful racquets, poly strings.
Who would be the overall BEST PLAYER? This is the ONLY WAY you can decide.
But at least you understand the parameters
