BOAT is (not) highest peak ELO player?

#1
Is there any better or more objective way to determine player's best game than peak ELO rating?
Is there a better or more objective way to determine who is BOAT than peak ELO rating?
If you have one, please elaborate on why is better or more objective.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#8
Any system which discusses Peak play and has Marat Safin(Before the hounds come out to play he annihilated No. 1 Sampras in USO 2000F who was coming off of a WB victory and an ATG and in a Slam Final, and edged Peak Federer in GS SF. in AO 2005 ) at #64 then it should be considered failure beyond comprehension
 
#10
Elo is a lie. The big 4 just better than everyone else in the field once it became the big 4. So many SF and Finals between them that the Elo ratings are sky high for all of them from playing each other. Whichever one of them at any given time that came out on top during that period is showered with false elo. Djokovic reaped from this the most since he peaked during this period. Pretty simple.
 
Last edited:
#11
Most importantly I love Murray buy any system where Peak PETE is ranked that much below him especially when he was nigh unbeatable on Grass and fast HC, is laughable beyond measure.
Murray did win more better ranked players more often.

Is there a better way to measure this kind of stuff?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

Sport

Hall of Fame
#12
The Peak ELO rating by Ultimate Tennis Statistics is NOT an objective way to measure the BOAT/highest peak ever. Why? Because the ELO rating formula considers all the ATP points achieved by a particular player, but it does not accurately measures the level of the rivals:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Federer and Nadal. That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Federer and Nadal had a higher peak level than McEnroe.. While Nadal had to face Federer and Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), and Federer had to face Nadal/Djokovic, McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, McEnroe was in a weaker era since he didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal and the 20 GS of Federer.

So if peak ELO is NOT a criterion of BOATNESS... then what does determine who is the BOAT? The number of consecutive Grand Slams is NOT an indicative of peak level, since it is possible to win many Majors without facing top rivals (no one would say Budge is the BOAT for winning 6 GS in a row, because of the lower level of his rivals).

This is the main criteria of BOATNESS:

1. H2H in Grand Slams against the main career rivals. It measures the highest peak level against the greatest rivals. Grand Slams tournaments are universally considered to be more relevant than other tournaments. Analogously, H2H in Grand Slams shoudl be considered more relevant than H2H in other tournaments. Otherwise, we would be displaying a double standard logic. Grand Slam achievements should always be considered more relevant than achievements outside Grand Slams.

CONCLUSION

Nadal is the BOAT: Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams over Federer and Djokovic. Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams 9-3 over Federer (including 4-3 outside clay) and 9-5 over Djokovic (including 2-1 at the US Open). That is, Nadal has won 75% of his Grand Slam matches against Federer, and 64% of his Grand Slam matches against Djokovic. That's brutal domination.

Djokovic is the second in the BOAT list: Djokovic has no argument to be the BOAT, since he has a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greater rival (Nadal). No BOAT can have a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greatest rival. The "only on clay" excuse is ridiculous. Clay is a tennis surface, and Nadal also leads Djokovic 2-1 at the US Open.

Federer is the third in the BOAT list: Federer faced greater rivals (Nadal, Djokovic) than Laver, Borg or McEnroe.
 
Last edited:
T

TennisFan97068

Guest
#14
ELO is not reliable for tennis.

That said, Djokovic is undoubtedly the BOAT of tennis.His pigeon Nadal is clearly inferior.
 
#15
The Peak ELO rating by Ultimate Tennis Statistics is NOT an objective way to measure the BOAT/highest peak ever. Why? Because the ELO rating formula considers all the ATP points achieved by a particular player, including Masters 1000 and Masters 500. The problem is that it underestimates the value of Grand Slams.

It is mathematically possible for a player with only 2 Grand Slams in a year to have a higher peak ELO than a player with the Calendar Year Grand Slam. In effect, if the player who wins only 2 Grand Slam in a calendar year wins many Masters 1000 and Masters 500, he can have a higher peak ELO than a player with the Career Grand Slam but very few Masters 1000/Masters 500.
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than Laver, Federer and Nadal, despite the fact that he never won the CYGS or 3 Grand Slams in a calendar year like Federer or Nadal. So no, peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since the ELO rating underestimates the value of Grand Slams. A man with only 2 Grand Slams in a year (McEnroe) doesn't have a higher peak level than Federer or Nadal, who won 3 Grand Slams in a calendar year, let alone Laver.

So if peak ELO is NOT a criterion of BOATNESS... then what does determine who is the BOAT?

In order of relevance, these are the only two criteria of BOATNESS:

1. H2H in Grand Slams against your main career rivals. It measures the highest peak level against the greatest rivals. Grand Slams tournaments are universally considered to be more relevant than other tournaments. Analogously, H2H in Grand Slams shoudl be considered more relevant than H2H in other tournaments. Otherwise, we would be displaying a double standard logic. Grand Slam achievements should always be considered more relevant than achievements outside Grand Slams.

2. Number of consecutive Grand Slams. Another indicative of peak level, but not so strong, as it is possible to win many Majors without facing top rivals,

CONCLUSION

Nadal is the BOAT: Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams over Federer and Djokovic. Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams 9-3 over Federer (including 4-3 outside clay) and 9-5 over Djokovic (including 2-1 at the US Open). That is, Nadal has won 75% of his Grand Slam matches against Federer, and 64% of his Grand Slam matches against Djokovic. That's brutal domination.

Rod Laver is the second in the BOAT list: Only player to win 4 Grand Slams in a row twice (not only once like Djokovic). Even if Djokovic achieved it on 3 surfaces, it does not compensate Laver's extra CYGS. Even Nadal won 3 Grand Slams on 3 surfaces in 2010, and it does not mean Nadal's 2010 is better than Laver's CYGS. In sum, 2 CYGS >>>>1 NCYGS.

Djokovic is the third in the BOAT list: Djokovic has no argument to be the BOAT, since he has a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greater rival (Nadal). No BOAT can have a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greatest rival. The "only on clay" excuse is ridiculous. Clay is a tennis surface, and Nadal also leads 2-1 at the US Open. And even Laver has a stronger BOAT argument, since 2 CYGS > 1 NCYGS.
"
It is mathematically possible for a player with only 2 Grand Slams in a year to have a higher peak ELO than a player with the Calendar Year Grand Slam. In effect, if the player who wins only 2 Grand Slam in a calendar year wins many Masters 1000 and Masters 500, he can have a higher peak ELO than a player with the Career Grand Slam but very few Masters 1000/Masters 500.
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings" .
Yes and that is how the ATP operates too. Take 2016 for example. Djokovic won more slams than Murray but Murray was awarded the Number 1 of the year trophy by the ATP (and the ITF for that matter) because he accrued more points overall. And there is nothing wrong with that. What was interested is that there wasn't too much dispute amongst the tennis public about that. People accepted that.
 
#16
I like tennis abstracts ELO results better

Player Year Elo
Novak Djokovic 2015 2525
Roger Federer 2007 2524
Bjorn Borg 1980 2519
John McEnroe 1985 2496
Rafael Nadal 2013 2489
Ivan Lendl 1986 2458
Andy Murray 2009 2388
Jimmy Connors 1979 2384
Boris Becker 1990 2383
Pete Sampras 1994 2376
Andre Agassi 1995 2355
Mats Wilander 1984 2355
Juan Martin del Potro 2009 2352
Stefan Edberg 1988 2346
Guillermo Vilas 1978 2325

Just because the top two are correct.

Source :Source
 

Lew

Hall of Fame
#17
Fed fans typical scheme:

- find something disagreeable about a method

- trash the method completely

- repeat for all methods, because for all methods 2003-07 is garbage
 
T

TennisFan97068

Guest
#19
I like tennis abstracts ELO results better

Player Year Elo
Novak Djokovic 2015 2525
Roger Federer 2007 2524
Bjorn Borg 1980 2519
John McEnroe 1985 2496
Rafael Nadal 2013 2489
Ivan Lendl 1986 2458
Andy Murray 2009 2388
Jimmy Connors 1979 2384
Boris Becker 1990 2383
Pete Sampras 1994 2376
Andre Agassi 1995 2355
Mats Wilander 1984 2355
Juan Martin del Potro 2009 2352
Stefan Edberg 1988 2346
Guillermo Vilas 1978 2325

Just because the top two are correct.

Source :Source
Still don't trust the system but this list is good except Sampras placement.
 
#21
Any system which discusses Peak play and has Marat Safin(Before the hounds come out to play he annihilated No. 1 Sampras in USO 2000F who was coming off of a WB victory and an ATG and in a Slam Final, and edged Peak Federer in GS SF. in AO 2005 ) at #64 then it should be considered failure beyond comprehension
That's where the ELO system uses in tennis hits a roadblock and has a flaw because it rewards consistency and domination over the field. It does not reward a sporadic period where you win a Slam and then win basically nothing else for months or years on end. Safin is ranked #31 all time on hardcourt according ultimate tennis and hit his peak at the 2005 AO. This is where I would expect him to hit his peak but would expect his peak to be higher. I would not call ELO a failure though considering how many sports use it.
Most importantly I love Murray buy any system where Peak PETE is ranked that much below him especially when he was nigh unbeatable on Grass and fast HC, is laughable beyond measure.
He is ranked that much below Murray because he is so terrible on clay and Murray is not. ELO doesn't know you won a Slam, a Masters or 250 so it treats all tournament wins the same, and still rewards you if you win a tournament and beat top players. This is the 2nd flaw in ELO in tennis. It cannot differentiate between a Slam and non-Slam. Even so, it can be explained why Sampras is ranked that low since he is just that terrible on one surface. It drags his entire rating down. When you separate each rating by surface, Sampras is #3 on hardcourt and Murray is #8, on grass Sampras is #6 and Murray is #10, and on carpet Sampras is #8. On clay, Sampras is #58 and Murray is #12.
Elo is a lie. The big 4 just better than everyone else in the field once it became the big 4. So many SF and Finals between them that the Elo ratings are sky high for all of them from playing each other. Whichever one of them at any given time that came out on top during that period is showered with false elo. Djokovic reaped from this the most since he peaked during this period. Pretty simple.
To call ELO a lie would make you sound uninformed. ELO was adopted as the official system to be used by the World Chess Federation in 1970. It was used by American college football from 1998 to 2013 until they employed college playoffs in 2014. It is used officially for Intercollegiate tennis association and World Team Tennis. It is used officially to calculate the FIFA Women's World Rankings and after 2018 is expected to be adopted to be used in FIFA World Rankings. There is a lot of other ways it is used like by Nate Silver and the SB Nation site for baseball. So to say ELO is a lie means you know very little about it and its uses. It is not flaw free when being used in tennis but it is useful in a lot of ways. It's best to understand it more and understand which ways it's useful than just calling it a lie and dismissing it.
 

Sport

Hall of Fame
#22
"
It is mathematically possible for a player with only 2 Grand Slams in a year to have a higher peak ELO than a player with the Calendar Year Grand Slam. In effect, if the player who wins only 2 Grand Slam in a calendar year wins many Masters 1000 and Masters 500, he can have a higher peak ELO than a player with the Career Grand Slam but very few Masters 1000/Masters 500.
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings" .
Yes and that is how the ATP operates too. Take 2016 for example. Djokovic won more slams than Murray but Murray was awarded the Number 1 of the year trophy by the ATP (and the ITF for that matter) because he accrued more points overall. And there is nothing wrong with that. What was interested is that there wasn't too much dispute amongst the tennis public about that. People accepted that.
Exactly, the ATP number 1 does not determine who had the BETTER year, but the player more CONSISTENT. Better is not a synonym with consistent. Murray only won 1 GS in 2016, not 2 like Djokovic. If Nadal were to end up Year Ending #1 in 2018, it would not mean he had the greater year. Nadal would take Djokovic's 2 GS in 2018 over the Year Ending #1 any day.


The Peak ELO rating by Ultimate Tennis Statistics is NOT an objective way to measure the BOAT/highest peak ever. Why? Because the ELO rating formula considers all the ATP points achieved by a particular player, but it does not accurately measures the level of the rivals:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Federer and Nadal. That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Federer and Nadal had a higher peak level than McEnroe.. While Nadal had to face Federer and Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), and Federer had to face Nadal/Djokovic, McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, McEnroe was in a weaker era since he didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal and the 20 GS of Federer.

So if peak ELO is NOT a criterion of BOATNESS... then what does determine who is the BOAT? The number of consecutive Grand Slams is NOT an indicative of peak level, since it is possible to win many Majors without facing top rivals (no one would say Budge is the BOAT for winning 6 GS in a row, because of the lower level of his rivals).

This is the main criteria of BOATNESS:

1. H2H in Grand Slams against the main career rivals. It measures the highest peak level against the greatest rivals. Grand Slams tournaments are universally considered to be more relevant than other tournaments. Analogously, H2H in Grand Slams should be considered more relevant than H2H in other tournaments. Otherwise, we would be displaying a double standard logic. Grand Slam achievements should always be considered more relevant than achievements outside Grand Slams.

CONCLUSION

Nadal is the BOAT: Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams over Federer and Djokovic. Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams 9-3 over Federer (including 4-3 outside clay) and 9-5 over Djokovic (including 2-1 at the US Open). That is, Nadal has won 75% of his Grand Slam matches against Federer, and 64% of his Grand Slam matches against Djokovic. That's brutal domination.

Djokovic is the second in the BOAT list: Djokovic has no argument to be the BOAT, since he has a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greater rival (Nadal). No BOAT can have a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greatest rival. The "only on clay" excuse is ridiculous. Clay is a tennis surface, and Nadal also leads Djokovic 2-1 at the US Open.

Federer is the third in the BOAT list: Federer faced greater rivals (Nadal, Djokovic) than Laver, Borg or McEnroe.
 
Last edited:
#23
The Peak ELO rating by Ultimate Tennis Statistics is NOT an objective way to measure the BOAT/highest peak ever. Why? Because the ELO rating formula considers all the ATP points achieved by a particular player, but it does not accurately measures the level of the rivals:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Federer and Nadal. That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Federer and Nadal had a higher peak level than McEnroe.. While Nadal had to face Federer and Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), and Federer had to face Nadal/Djokovic, McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, McEnroe was in a weaker era since he didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal and the 20 GS of Djokovic.

So if peak ELO is NOT a criterion of BOATNESS... then what does determine who is the BOAT? The number of consecutive Grand Slams is NOT an indicative of peak level, since it is possible to win many Majors without facing top rivals (no one would say Budge is the BOAT for winning 6 GS in a row, because of the lower level of his rivals).

This is the main criteria of BOATNESS:

1. H2H in Grand Slams against the main career rivals. It measures the highest peak level against the greatest rivals. Grand Slams tournaments are universally considered to be more relevant than other tournaments. Analogously, H2H in Grand Slams shoudl be considered more relevant than H2H in other tournaments. Otherwise, we would be displaying a double standard logic. Grand Slam achievements should always be considered more relevant than achievements outside Grand Slams.

CONCLUSION

Nadal is the BOAT: Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams over Federer and Djokovic. Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams 9-3 over Federer (including 4-3 outside clay) and 9-5 over Djokovic (including 2-1 at the US Open). That is, Nadal has won 75% of his Grand Slam matches against Federer, and 64% of his Grand Slam matches against Djokovic. That's brutal domination.

Djokovic is the second in the BOAT list: Djokovic has no argument to be the BOAT, since he has a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greater rival (Nadal). No BOAT can have a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greatest rival. The "only on clay" excuse is ridiculous. Clay is a tennis surface, and Nadal also leads Djokovic 2-1 at the US Open.

Federer is the third in the BOAT list: Federer faced greater rivals (Nadal, Djokovic) than Laver, Borg or McEnroe.

McEnroe is ranked below Federer on clay, hardcourt and grass, and ranked above Nadal on grass, where he should be. It is McEnroe's dominance on carpet, putting him above everyone else comfortably, that sends his rating that high overall. Overall ELO is not as relevant in my view as surface ELO.

Your head to head metric would be great but it is flawed and you know why. Nadal met Djokerer 12 times at RG. He met Djokerer 5 times at AO, 6 times at Wimbledon and 3 times at the USO. That is entirely too many meetings at one Slam to be a serious measurement. When you look at when he met Djokovic, he played him 7 times at RG, 1 time at AO, 3 times at Wimbledon and 3 times at USO. You have to add all the other 3 Slams together to match the meetings at RG. It is too clay skewed. If he had met Djokovic 7 times at AO or 7 times at Wimbledon and 3 times at RG, he would not lead the head to head. This metric would make sense if the players met at the Slams more equally which they didn't.
 
#24
That's where the ELO system uses in tennis hits a roadblock and has a flaw because it rewards consistency and domination over the field. It does not reward a sporadic period where you win a Slam and then win basically nothing else for months or years on end. Safin is ranked #31 all time on hardcourt according ultimate tennis and hit his peak at the 2005 AO. This is where I would expect him to hit his peak but would expect his peak to be higher. I would not call ELO a failure though considering how many sports use it.

He is ranked that much below Murray because he is so terrible on clay and Murray is not. ELO doesn't know you won a Slam, a Masters or 250 so it treats all tournament wins the same, and still rewards you if you win a tournament and beat top players. This is the 2nd flaw in ELO in tennis. It cannot differentiate between a Slam and non-Slam. Even so, it can be explained why Sampras is ranked that low since he is just that terrible on one surface. It drags his entire rating down. When you separate each rating by surface, Sampras is #3 on hardcourt and Murray is #8, on grass Sampras is #6 and Murray is #10, and on carpet Sampras is #8. On clay, Sampras is #58 and Murray is #12.

To call ELO a lie would make you sound uninformed. ELO was adopted as the official system to be used by the World Chess Federation in 1970. It was used by American college football from 1998 to 2013 until they employed college playoffs in 2014. It used officially for Intercollegiate tennis association and World Team Tennis. It used officially to calculate the FIFA Women's World Rankings and after 2018 is expected to be adopted to be used in FIFA World Rankings. There is a lot of other ways it used like by Nate Silver and the SB Nation site for baseball. So to say ELO is a lie means you know very little about it and its uses. It is not flaw free when being used in tennis but it is useful in a lot of ways. It's best to understand it more and understand which ays it's useful than just calling it a lie and dismissing it.
Everything you named is a team sport except for chess. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to scan down the ratings and see where guys are in certain years or for their career to tell that it is BS for the most part. It gives a main idea of what happened. Just cut dry with no story there. It's right about some things, but way off on others. I view that as a part truth which to me is a lie. Federer has a higher elo rating on HC and grass in 2011 than Djokovic. How the hell does that make sense? One of the most dominant years in the history of the sport but Djokovic trails Federer on 2/3 surfaces. Sorry but that did it for me.
 

Sport

Hall of Fame
#25
I like tennis abstracts ELO results better

Player Year Elo
Novak Djokovic 2015 2525
Roger Federer 2007 2524
Bjorn Borg 1980 2519
John McEnroe 1985 2496
Rafael Nadal 2013 2489
Ivan Lendl 1986 2458
Andy Murray 2009 2388
Jimmy Connors 1979 2384
Boris Becker 1990 2383
Pete Sampras 1994 2376
Andre Agassi 1995 2355
Mats Wilander 1984 2355
Juan Martin del Potro 2009 2352
Stefan Edberg 1988 2346
Guillermo Vilas 1978 2325

Just because the top two are correct.

Source :Source
Either you like ELO rankings or not, you can't display such a double standard (you like ELO rankings when they support your favorite player but you don't like ELO rankings when they don't support your favorite player).

Borg and McEnroe a higher peak ELO than Nadal? That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Nadal had a higher peak level than Borg and McEnroe. ELO rankings fail to accurately consider the level of competition. While Nadal had to face peak Federer and peak Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), Borg didn't face any GOAT candidate in the 1970s, and McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate as well (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, Borg McEnroe were in a weaker era since they didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal. Not to mention Borg won 0 Grand Slams on hard courts.

Since you love ELO rankings, in this one McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Nadal and Federer:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings
 
Last edited:

Sport

Hall of Fame
#26
McEnroe is ranked below Federer on clay, hardcourt and grass, and ranked above Nadal on grass, where he should be.
No, he shouldn't. The ELO ranking fails to accurately measure the level of competition. McEnroe didn't have to face the grass GOAT Federer. Nadal would have won Wimbledon from 2006 to 2008 consecutively, and Wimbledon 2011/2018 if not for Djokovic. McEnroe would not have won Wimbledon 2008 against Federer, nor would have he defeated Federer 2006, Federer 2007, Djokovic 2011 or Djokovic 2018.

Also, don't try to justify what can't be justified just to favor Djokovic. The Peak ELO rating is NOT an objective way to measure the BOAT/highest peak ever. Why? Because the ELO rating formula considers all the ATP points achieved by a particular player, but it does not accurately measures the level of the rivals:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Federer and Nadal. That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Federer and Nadal had a higher peak level than McEnroe. While Nadal had to face Federer and Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), and Federer had to face Nadal/Djokovic, McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, McEnroe was in a weaker era since he didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal and the 20 GS of Federer. McEnroe also has 0 Grand Slams on clay.
 
#27
Everything you named is a team sport except for chess. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to scan down the ratings and see where guys are in certain years or for their career to tell that it is BS for the most part. It gives a main idea of what happened. Just cut dry with no story there. It's right about some things, but way off on others. I view that as a part truth which to me is a lie. Federer has a higher elo rating on HC and grass in 2011 than Djokovic. How the hell does that make sense? One of the most dominant years in the history of the sport but Djokovic trails Federer on 2/3 surfaces. Sorry but that did it for me.
Yes most of the sports I listed were team sports but that still doesn't make it completely BS. Part truth isn't exactly a lie either. It sounds to me that you don't really understand or know how to use it. Federer did not have a higher ELO than Djokovic on hardcourt in 2011. He ended the year with a higher hardcourt rating because Djokovic's form dropped off a cliff after the US Open and Federer won Basel, Paris Masters and the WTF. As far as grass, Djokovic's grass rating in 2011 jumped 130 points and Federer's dropped 44 points. Djokovic moved from #7 to #2. According to ELO, Federer was so dominant at his peak on grass and his lead was so vast that he stayed #1 in 2010 and 2011 even though he lost Wimbledon both years. Now I would say that his rating should have dropped more than that but I still don't say it's a lie and dismiss it.
 
#28
The Peak ELO rating by Ultimate Tennis Statistics is NOT an objective way to measure the BOAT/highest peak ever. Why? Because the ELO rating formula considers all the ATP points achieved by a particular player, but it does not accurately measures the level of the rivals:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Federer and Nadal. That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Federer and Nadal had a higher peak level than McEnroe.. While Nadal had to face Federer and Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), and Federer had to face Nadal/Djokovic, McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, McEnroe was in a weaker era since he didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal and the 20 GS of Federer.

So if peak ELO is NOT a criterion of BOATNESS... then what does determine who is the BOAT? The number of consecutive Grand Slams is NOT an indicative of peak level, since it is possible to win many Majors without facing top rivals (no one would say Budge is the BOAT for winning 6 GS in a row, because of the lower level of his rivals).

This is the main criteria of BOATNESS:

1. H2H in Grand Slams against the main career rivals. It measures the highest peak level against the greatest rivals. Grand Slams tournaments are universally considered to be more relevant than other tournaments. Analogously, H2H in Grand Slams shoudl be considered more relevant than H2H in other tournaments. Otherwise, we would be displaying a double standard logic. Grand Slam achievements should always be considered more relevant than achievements outside Grand Slams.

CONCLUSION

Nadal is the BOAT: Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams over Federer and Djokovic. Nadal leads the H2H in Grand Slams 9-3 over Federer (including 4-3 outside clay) and 9-5 over Djokovic (including 2-1 at the US Open). That is, Nadal has won 75% of his Grand Slam matches against Federer, and 64% of his Grand Slam matches against Djokovic. That's brutal domination.

Djokovic is the second in the BOAT list: Djokovic has no argument to be the BOAT, since he has a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greater rival (Nadal). No BOAT can have a losing H2H in Grand Slams against his greatest rival. The "only on clay" excuse is ridiculous. Clay is a tennis surface, and Nadal also leads Djokovic 2-1 at the US Open.

Federer is the third in the BOAT list: Federer faced greater rivals (Nadal, Djokovic) than Laver, Borg or McEnroe.
Nadal can’t be the BOAT when Federer, Sampras and Djokovic are better on grass and HCs.
 
#29
No, he shouldn't. The ELO ranking fails to accurately measure the level of competition. McEnroe didn't have to face the grass GOAT Federer. Nadal would have won Wimbledon from 2006 to 2008 consecutively, and Wimbledon 2011/2018 if not for Djokovic. McEnroe would not have won Wimbledon 2008 against Federer, nor would have he defeated Federer 2006, Federer 2007, Djokovic 2011 or Djokovic 2018.

Also, don't try to justify what can't be justified just to favor Djokovic. The Peak ELO rating by Ultimate Tennis Statistics is NOT an objective way to measure the BOAT/highest peak ever. Why? Because the ELO rating formula considers all the ATP points achieved by a particular player, but it does not accurately measures the level of the rivals:

http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/peakEloRatings

McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Federer and Nadal. That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Federer and Nadal had a higher peak level than McEnroe.. While Nadal had to face Federer and Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), and Federer had to face Nadal/Djokovic, McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, McEnroe was in a weaker era since he didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal and the 20 GS of Federer.
McEnroe faced the grass GOAT of his time which was Borg and beat him just like Nadal. He also has 3 Slams on grass to Nadal's 2. You can't just place McEnroe in a time machine and throw him in Nadal's era and try to make sense of that. McEnroe was using wood rackets for heaven's sake. He beat Borg, Connors and Lendl in his Wimbledon runs. It's great you don't think Borg is a GOAT candidate but to me, he is in the top 5 or 6 at least. To also call McEnroe's era weak is ridiculous considering who he went up against back then. It was his era that is viewed as the strongest by the majority.
 
#30
Yes most of the sports I listed were team sports but that still doesn't make it completely BS. Part truth isn't exactly a lie either. It sounds to me that you don't really understand or know how to use it. Federer did not have a higher ELO than Djokovic on hardcourt in 2011. He ended the year with a higher hardcourt rating because Djokovic's form dropped off a cliff after the US Open and Federer won Basel, Paris Masters and the WTF. As far as grass, Djokovic's grass rating in 2011 jumped 130 points and Federer's dropped 44 points. Djokovic moved from #7 to #2. According to ELO, Federer was so dominant at his peak on grass and his lead was so vast that he stayed #1 in 2010 and 2011 even though he lost Wimbledon both years. Now I would say that his rating should have dropped more than that but I still don't say it's a lie and dismiss it.
It sounds to me that you like it because Djokovic benefits from it more than anyone else :p. I mean seriously how does someone have a slam taken away from them or added just because ELO said so? LOL. Why do I want to understand something that crazy?
 
#31
Is there any better or more objective way to determine player's best game than peak ELO rating?
Is there a better or more objective way to determine who is BOAT than peak ELO rating?
If you have one, please elaborate on why is better or more objective.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
I guess it's how you choose to define it. As i have said countless times, Nishikori has a higher peak ELO than Wawrinka, who is the better player? I would say Stan by far. I dont know exactly how ELO is calculated, but i guess it has to do with Stan being more inconsistent. Anyway, being "best" also has to do with peaking at the right time. Stan has 3 slams and a Masters. Nishi has none.
 
#32
It sounds to me that you like it because Djokovic benefits from it more than anyone else :p. I mean seriously how does someone have a slam taken away from them or added just because ELO said so? LOL. Why do I want to understand something that crazy?
If it was complete crap then so many sports would not officially use it. It has its uses for certain things and it also has its flaws, in relation to tennis. I could say you don't like it because Federer is not #1. ;)
 
#33
I guess it's how you choose to define it. As i have said countless times, Nishikori has a higher peak ELO than Wawrinka, who is the better player? I would say Stan by far. I dont know exactly how ELO is calculated, but i guess it has to do with Stan being more inconsistent. Anyway, being "best" also has to do with peaking at the right time. Stan has 3 slams and a Masters. Nishi has none.
Wawrinka leads Nishikori on every surface ELO rating. His overall rating is lower because he is very inconsistent.
 
#34
Either you like ELO rankings or not, you can't display such a double standard (you like ELO rankings when they support your favorite player but you don't like ELO rankings when they don't support your favorite player).

Borg and McEnroe a higher peak ELO than Nadal? That is the proof that peak ELO is not a synonym with higher peak level, since obviously Nadal had a higher peak level than Borg and McEnroe. ELO rankings fail to accurately consider the level of competition. While Nadal had to face peak Federer and peak Djokovic (2 GOAT candidates), Borg didn't face any GOAT candidate in the 1970s, and McEnroe didn't face any single GOAT candidate as well (Borg, Lendl and Connors are not GOAT candidates). Put simply, Borg McEnroe were in a weaker era since they didn't face any player so good as the Big 3. In addition, McEnroe only won 7 GS in a weaker era, compared with the 17 GS of Nadal. Not to mention Borg won 0 Grand Slams on hard courts.

Since you love ELO rankings, in this one McEnroe has a higher peak ELO than both Nadal and Federer:
Well did if you saw the last line before going bonkers at the site for putting Nadal behind,you would know I was just joking.

You saw with your own eyes how good Nadal 2008,10 was you won't need any number to tell you that.

Same with me. I trust my eyes more.
 

Lew

Hall of Fame
#37
Except at Wimbledon. The most prestigious event in tennis.
Not this please. Slams are equal. And grass is technically the least relevant surface, 99% of tennis in the world is not played on grass.

This happened at Wimbledon when Murray's mother knew Djokovic had lost, by the way:

 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#39
Yea and that's one of the major flaws in it. It needs some type of weight system employed in my opinion where certain tournament wins weigh more than others.
You also need to find a player's actual peak with the eye test and compare it's ELO stats with other tournaments. That's one of the fundamental flaws with ELO.

Some players are measured on their actual peak, then there's players like Kuerten or Nalbandian who aren't measured at the peak of their powers but are instead measured by some arbitrary tournament/stat. For example Nalbandian's ELO rating comes from a place he played in during 2010, how is that accurate?

That is why I don't take Lew's stats seriously. Some things need work.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#40
Not this please. Slams are equal. And grass is technically the least relevant surface, 99% of tennis in the world is not played on grass.

This happened at Wimbledon when Murray's mother knew Djokovic had lost, by the way:


Some nightmare.

You can't have it both ways. Either Andy Murray is as good as Andre Agassi or Novak Djokovic got hammered by an inferior opponent.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#41
Also by the way, I'll post this:


He also took sets off peak Djokovic during the clay season in 2011, Murray's weakest surface. No excuses.
 
#43
You also need to find a player's actual peak with the eye test and compare it's ELO stats with other tournaments. That's one of the fundamental flaws with ELO.

Some players are measured on their actual peak, then there's players like Kuerten or Nalbandian who aren't measured at the peak of their powers but are instead measured by some arbitrary tournament/stat. For example Nalbandian's ELO rating comes from a place he played in during 2010, how is that accurate?

That is why I don't take Lew's stats seriously. Some things need work.
I would say the reason Nalbandian rating is higher in 2010 than fall 2007 for example is because ELO considers 2010 to be a tougher field than 2007. It looks like Nalbandian had an 11 match winning streak at that time and won 16/18 matches. I would not agree with this though and think his peak at the fall of 2007 was higher, and this just highlights that it's not a perfect system when used in tennis.
 
Last edited:

Lew

Hall of Fame
#44

Some nightmare.

You can't have it both ways. Either Andy Murray is as good as Andre Agassi or Novak Djokovic got hammered by an inferior opponent.

2011-16 Murray in Slams against other players: 117-12 (90.7%)
2011-16 Murray in Slams against Djokovic: 2-8 (20%)

Yes, Djokovic was his nightmare.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#45
2011-16 Murray in Slams against other players: 117-12 (90.7%)
2011-16 Murray in Slams against Djokovic: 2-8 (20%)

Yes, Djokovic was his nightmare.
How did he do during that 2012-2013 period though?

Took Novak to 5 at the AO.
Beat him at the Olympics.
Beat him at the US Open.
Lost to him in 4 at the AO (13).
Beat him in STRAIGHTS at Wimbledon (13).

It's the back injury that ruined Murray.
 
#46

Some nightmare.

You can't have it both ways. Either Andy Murray is as good as Andre Agassi or Novak Djokovic got hammered by an inferior opponent.
Andy Murray is one of the best on grass and probably was a slightly better grass player than Djokovic at that time. I don't see why this is considered a bad loss really or how he was an inferior opponent considering the circumstances. It was 3 tight sets. Murray would have gotten hammered in 2014 or 2015 but he lost both times in a round before making it to Djokovic.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#47
Andy Murray is one of the best on grass and probably was a slightly better grass player than Djokovic at that time. I don't see why this is considered a bad loss really. It was 3 tight sets. Murray would have gotten hammered in 2014 or 2015 but he lost both times in a round before making it to Djokovic.
You can never tell though, Murray was playing pretty good around this time and making finals of heaps of events. Just like in 2016, he was even more consistent than Djokovic and won 12,000+ ATP points.

I think Novak would have lost more had had met late 2016 Murray more often.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
#48
I would say the reason Nalbandian rating is higher in 2010 than fall 2007 for example is because ELO considers 2010 to be a tougher field than 2007. It looks like Nalbandian had an 11 match winning streak at that time and won 16/18 matches. I would not agree with this though and think his peak at the fall of 2007 was higher, and this just highlights that it's not a perfect system when used in tennis.
But do you consider 2010 to be a tougher field than 2007? 2010 had stagnant Murray, off-form Djokovic, so-so Federer. The only big player that was great that year was Nadal.

I think that if they measured his fall 2007 level it'd come up way higher.
 
#49
You can never tell though, Murray was playing pretty good around this time and making finals of heaps of events. Just like in 2016, he was even more consistent than Djokovic and won 12,000+ ATP points.

I think Novak would have lost more had had met late 2016 Murray more often.
I can never tell what? Murray would have gotten destroyed at Wimbledon 2015 if he played Djokovic. Federer did good to make it 4 sets because it should have been straights. Anderson was the only one who really scared Djokovic and he won those 1st two sets by the slimmest of margins.

Murray was a better player in the second half of 2016 than Djokovic because Djokovic's level dropped so he would have beaten Djokovic more if they played since he was playing better at that time.
 
#50
But do you consider 2010 to be a tougher field than 2007? 2010 had stagnant Murray, off-form Djokovic, so-so Federer. The only big player that was great that year was Nadal.

I think that if they measured his fall 2007 level it'd come up way higher.
It's looking at the overall field, not just the top players. I do think the level of tennis went up after 2007 though. I think the level increased in 2007, again in 2008 and again in 2009. In 2010, Federer and Djokovic's level dropped though so the competition was not as tough at the top level. Not even close really.
 
Top