Let's not joke if it were as you say Djokovic is the GOAT.
They also care about the composition of Grand Slams. Although Federer and Nadal have each won 20 Grand Slams (using the inflated terminology of the current scene), there is still a distinction today between the top two events (Wimbledon and U.S. Open) and the other two majors.
Friend us open is not top anymore, Australian open is easily the second best nearly on par with Wimbledon.
As usual voice of reason
Even if we look at Wimbledon only, Federer has a substantial lead over the other two guys.
Don't get me wrong but you are really living in the past, I will take today's players and legends word.
No, not even close. The Aussie Open is about a million dollars less than either Wimbledon or U.S. Open for the winner. The French is about two million dollars less than Wimbledon or the U.S. Open.
Except those world tours were not really world tours...just two guys, one a rookie.
It was often for the world championship on the line.
The billed world championship, like many other world championships. There were several world championships in each year.
Thanks for the suggestion but I must confess that my ranking is just an attempt to group results in order to insert Gonzalez without penalizing him too much. Not to forget the big myth. That's all.
Give Lavers TCC 5000 points each for winning it in 1970 and 1971 so Lavers results with this modification are 20 what? 25,00?
Well, u r dividing with 4835,so he would gain a little over 2 points
I'd go as far as saying give the world pro tour winner 10,000 points for each world pro tour won . Some world tours had over 100 matches against the best in the world
. Also slams Laver and Rosewall won should be given double points, why? Because they played the longer format, no tiebreak until 1975 i think. Laver played Roche 90 game match in 1969 one of the slams, il give you an example 7/6 6/7 7/6 6/7 7/6 is 65 games todays maximum .
1500 for pro majors and 3000 for open era majors? Is that more acceptable to you?
WRONG! The AO and FO are equal slams in value: ranking points, competition, money and are unique in their own way.
Not in money, Wimbledon and U.S. are still the top two. Also in terms of prestige, television ratings.
The AO and FO are official slams which is why: Roger has 20, Novak has 20 and Rafa has 20, according to the ATP and ITF official count. Accept the Reality, like it or not.
Sure, they are Slams, but all Slams are not created equal. Some are bigger and better.
This is a myth. While I always feel most players grow up wanting to win W and most feel it’s more prestige all slams count the same. USO Fed hasn’t won since 08 so while the 5 in a row is a excellent achievement the 13 years without one doesn’t. I get when people say Nadal has 13 at the FO and is too Clay reliant to be goat but all slams are the same
They sure don't all have the same money or prestige.
TODAY, as in the past 30 years or so, ALL slams are equal competitive wise.
I agree, then we should eliminate 6 of Laver's amateur slams and 4 of Rosewall's.
In some years, the top amateur could be considered the equal or better of the top pros.
No doubt in some years the amateur players were the equal or superior to the pro players, however from the late fifties till the open era players like: Gonzalez, Sedgman, Rosewall, Trabert, Hoad and Laver were superior to the players on the amateur tour
Laver was probably the last amateur champ to be ranked ahead of the top pros.
Only before 1965
After 1965, you only have Santana and Newcombe as amateur No. 1.
SO IT SEEMS! NADAL HAS 21 OFFICIAL SLAMS, NOVAK AND FEDERER HAVE 20. In reality, the open era stats should be separate from those before the open era.
