Can ATG be both lesser or greater than “legend”?

[Deleted member 766172]

Offseason

I’ve usually considered a “legend” to be greater than an ATG because.... well, idk, seems like a label only for the GOAT contenders.

But I recently got to thinking. If Medvedev wins his first slam this AO, I would consider him a legend, whether or not he becomes an all time great of the sport. He would have overcome his first Grand Slam Finals loss in a similar fashion to overcoming his first masters final loss that precipitated a historic run, and would be the first member of the next gen to finally break through in a slam in times ruled by the Big3. It would make history.

So I would say All time greats and legends are 2 completely different things. A legend makes history and is remembered for it, while All Time Greats are the most accomplished in the sport. The two are not mutually exclusive, but I don’t believe they are mutually necessary either and one is not better than the other.

What do you guys think?

 

[Deleted member 766172]

Thread title should read “either” not “both”. Or I guess you could leave it as “both” and change the “or” to an “and”.

 

[Towny]

They're both somewhat nebulous terms. But broad consensus on here seems to be that there is a 6-slam cutoff for an ATG +/- Murray. I suspect that will have to change eventually though. If TTW is still here in 2119 and tennis is still being played in a similar way to today, there will probably be 30+ players who would fit this definition of ATGs. Perhaps the Beckers/Edbergs/Wilanders of tennis will get a demotion.

Legend is a far looser term though. You could consider a player to be 'legendary' for a number of reasons. Although I personally wouldn't consider Medvedev a 'legend' if he wins the Australian Open this year, I have no issue with the term being used in this kind of way

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

For me Rafa is a living legend already on RG, Federer in Wimbledon. Something greater than an ATG as they have some records that made them legendary as those record almost impossible to beat.

 

[Fabresque]

Meh. I’d consider Ivanisevic a legend for that Wimbledon run. It’s a much looser term like @Towny mentioned, so you could put anyone in that category. Nicolas Massu is considered a legend in the South American tennis scene for his OGM’s but most of us know he’s not that good of a player.

 

[Third Serve]

A legend of the sport is, in my opinion, one who does something absolutely legendary for the sport. The name really says it all.

Someone like Federer would be a legend for his having won 20 Slam titles. He would also be an ATG in my eyes since he passes my criteria of 5+ Slams.

However, Ivanisevic would be considered a legend purely for that Wimbledon title run, though he is not an ATG. Legend is a much looser term imo and can apply to both ATGs and non-ATGs.

 

[Sport]

They're both somewhat nebulous terms. But broad consensus on here seems to be that there is a 6-slam cutoff for an ATG +/- Murray. I suspect that will have to change eventually though. If TTW is still here in 2119 and tennis is still being played in a similar way to today, there will probably be 30+ players who would fit this definition of ATGs. Perhaps the Beckers/Edbergs/Wilanders of tennis will get a demotion.

Legend is a far looser term though. You could consider a player to be 'legendary' for a number of reasons. Although I personally wouldn't consider Medvedev a 'legend' if he wins the Australian Open this year, I have no issue with the term being used in this kind of way

Brilliant post. I agree with everything you said. Especially the part about Becker or Edberg probably no longer being considered ATGs by 2219 or so, as probably there will be 30+ players with over 6 Slams. So people will start to rise the ATG criterion to 7-8 Slams. 7 at least.

I also concur that the term "legend" has no definition at all and can be used quite freely.

 

[MichaelNadal]

They can be a legend, but not Mythical

 

[BeatlesFan]

Of course. Wilander won 7 slams and won 3 majors in one year, but he's not a legend. Neither is Roy Emerson. And anyone who claims Becker or Edberg will "get a demotion" from ATG/legendary status is simply clueless and leave it at that. Two of the greatest serve and volleyers of all time in the game will never be demoted. It shouldn't even have to be said. If Medevdev wins 5 AO's and 3 FO's he's suddenly elevated above two guys with "only" 6 slams each?

No... No.... No.

 

[King No1e]

Depends. Newcombe or Courier aren't considered legends by most fans, but Murray and Ivanisevic are.

 

[Sport]

Depends. Newcombe or Courier aren't considered legends by most fans, but Murray and Ivanisevic are.

Most casual tennis fans born in the 1990s don't even know who is Ivanisevic. People from future generations will not remember as a legend a guy with only one Slam.

 

[Third Serve]

Most casual tennis fans born in the 1990s don't even know who is Ivanisevic. People from future generations will not remember as a legend a guy with only one Slam.

Wimbledon 2001 would like to speak with you.

 

[ChrisRF]

Of course. Wilander won 7 slams and won 3 majors in one year, but he's not a legend. Neither is Roy Emerson. And anyone who claims Becker or Edberg will "get a demotion" from ATG/legendary status is simply clueless and leave it at that. Two of the greatest serve and volleyers of all time in the game will never be demoted. It shouldn't even have to be said. If Medevdev wins 5 AO's and 3 FO's he's suddenly elevated above two guys with "only" 6 slams each?

No... No.... No.

Well, I really like you and your enthusiasm, but @Towny clearly has a point here.

He talked about 100 years from now, and surely then everything about 150 and 250 years ago will be mentioned without much context. I wouldn’t even be surprised if then names like Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Renshaw and Sears will be a footnote of the same caliber, despite the latter ones mostly having to play a challenge round only.

To make a comparison to general history: It will be similar to Caesar and Charlemagne. Both legendary names, both centuries apart from each other but the latter one even more away from us now. The time differences are the same if we extrapolate it to the duration of tennis history until 2119. Everyone knows the names, but only a few enthusiasts know real details of their lives. And almost nobody thinks about them when it comes to their meaning for today, no matter if 1200 or 2000 years away. That’s what time does, and I don’t like it as well, but it’s undeniable.

Also why do you think Becker/Edberg will be bigger legends than Wilander only because they played serve and volley? If not for some miracle S&V will have a renaissance during those 100 years, then why should that matter in a positive way? If anything it will be looked at as an ancient style without significance for then present days. So due to this and the other arguments of course Medevedev only has to pass their numbers to be mentioned above them in 2119.

 

[thrust]

Of course. Wilander won 7 slams and won 3 majors in one year, but he's not a legend. Neither is Roy Emerson. And anyone who claims Becker or Edberg will "get a demotion" from ATG/legendary status is simply clueless and leave it at that. Two of the greatest serve and volleyers of all time in the game will never be demoted. It shouldn't even have to be said. If Medevdev wins 5 AO's and 3 FO's he's suddenly elevated above two guys with "only" 6 slams each?

No... No.... No.

IMO, an 8 slam winner is superior to a 6 slam winner, not that I think Medvedev will ever be a multiple slam winner. Winning IS what counts most, not style of play.

 

[thrust]

Most casual tennis fans born in the 1990s don't even know who is Ivanisevic. People from future generations will not remember as a legend a guy with only one Slam.

I AGREE!

 

[RaulRamirez]

They're both somewhat nebulous terms. But broad consensus on here seems to be that there is a 6-slam cutoff for an ATG +/- Murray. I suspect that will have to change eventually though. If TTW is still here in 2119 and tennis is still being played in a similar way to today, there will probably be 30+ players who would fit this definition of ATGs. Perhaps the Beckers/Edbergs/Wilanders of tennis will get a demotion.

Legend is a far looser term though. You could consider a player to be 'legendary' for a number of reasons. Although I personally wouldn't consider Medvedev a 'legend' if he wins the Australian Open this year, I have no issue with the term being used in this kind of way

That pretty much nails it for me.

I would add that one can have one legendary run -- such as Goran at Wimbledon or Noah at Roland Garros - but not really be a legend of the game, as I see it. Others would not make that distinction, and still others would have a higher standard for "legendary runs".

It's somewhat arbitrary and can be very subjective.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

Murray is ATG and Legend.

 

[alexio]

That pretty much nails it for me.

I would add that one can have one legendary run -- such as Goran at Wimbledon or Noah at Roland Garros - but not really be a legend of the game, as I see it. Others would not make that distinction, and still others would have a higher standard for "legendary runs".

It's somewhat arbitrary and can be very subjective.

it's more like one-hit wonders rather than legends..same story with the music ..vanilla ice, the knack, los del rio (and their famous hit macarena), divinyls, soft cell etc. can't be comparable with the true legends in this industry such as michael jackson, madonna, elvis, pink floyd, beatles, queen..

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I get a bit triggered when somebody calls Michael Owen a United legend because of the winner he scored in the 4-3 win against Man City. What a great day. I'm perfectly fine with cult hero.

 

[thrust]

Murray is ATG and Legend.

Murry is neither an ATG or legend, outside of Scotland.

 

[Nole14_15NoPressure]

They're both somewhat nebulous terms. But broad consensus on here seems to be that there is a 6-slam cutoff for an ATG +/- Murray. I suspect that will have to change eventually though. If TTW is still here in 2119 and tennis is still being played in a similar way to today, there will probably be 30+ players who would fit this definition of ATGs. Perhaps the Beckers/Edbergs/Wilanders of tennis will get a demotion.

Legend is a far looser term though. You could consider a player to be 'legendary' for a number of reasons. Although I personally wouldn't consider Medvedev a 'legend' if he wins the Australian Open this year, I have no issue with the term being used in this kind of way

 

[Mainad]

It can definitely be lesser. After all, Andy Murray is a legend.