GOAT as determined by a list of accomplishments

Bill W

Rookie
Nevermind. This was intended to invoke an alternative discussion in comparing the Big 3 with actual statistics based on real CAREER level ATP accomplishments. It was just a starting point, nothing more.

But I can see now that all it did was invoke more fanboy arguments, which was not the intention.

So we can return to our regularly scheduled hissy fits.
 
Last edited:

Ledigs

Hall of Fame
Let's add - record for wins at a single major and record for wins at a single tournament. Weight 3 or 4 I guess? It would be Rafa at French and whoever at a Masters.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Big issue - why choose these specific accomplishments and weightings? By this system, a player with 20 slams, 11 masters, and 4 WTF is less accomplished than a player with 0 slams, 12 masters, and 5 WTF.

This doesn't account for size of the difference in the categories, nor does it provide a good approximation for what they should be. A WTF is not worth 80% of a slam. Hell, even strictly by points it's only worth 75%.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Longest span between first and last Major:
(For now)
Federer: 14 years, 6 months and 15 days (Wimbledon 2003 - AO 2018)
Nadal: 14 years and 3 months (RG 2005 - US Open 2019)
8-B
It's pretty amazing that the guy who is most touted for longevity will lose this bragging right if he can't get another major, and Nadal wins another. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH

r2473

G.O.A.T.
The GOAT (if there is such a thing) cannot be determined by only one accomplishment (i.e. Grand Slams). It should be determined by a list of important accomplishments, across an entire career. That seems to be fair enough.

1. Choose a series of accomplishments
2. Weigh each accomplishment with a numeric value (open to discussion, of course)
3. Whoever holds that record, earns the weighted points.
4. Add up the points earned, and that is your GOAT.

A quick example (i.e. snapshot in time) of this looks like this:


Event Type

Event Weight

Roger​

Novak​

Rafa​

Roger​

Novak​

Rafa​
No of Slams​

5​

20​

16​

19​

5​
No of ATP finals​

4​

6​

5​

0​

4​
No of Master 1000s​

4​

28​

33​

35​

4​
No of ATP 500s​

3​

23​

12​

20​

3​
Total Singles Titles​

3​

102​

75​

84​

3​
Total Weeks at No 1​

3​

310​

268​

196​

3​
Longest Consecutive Weeks at No 1​

3​

237​

122​

56​

3​
Oldest #1​

2​

36+​

32+​

32+​

2​
Youngest #1​

2​

22 years, 178 days​

24 years, 43 days​

22 years, 76 days​

2​
Gold Medals​

4​

0​

0​

1​

4​
Calendar Year Grandslam
5​
0​
0​
0​
Non-Calendar Year Grandslam​
4​
0​
1​
0​
4​

Total​

23​

4​

10​

This would only be meaningful once all 3 retire, of course. So if Rafa surpasses Roger in slams, he goes up to 15, and Roger goes down to 18.

You could also do away with the weight and just give a point to the record holder.

NOTE: I want to be carefu not to include every possible stat that can be thought of. They should be highly significant. There are already 12 categories.

What do you think?
23>10>4

Federer is GOAT
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
By winning the 2017 French Open, 2017 US Open, 2018 French Open, 2019 French Open and 2019 US Open, Nadal is the only man in the Open Era who’s won five or more Grand Slam titles after turning 30.

Laver, Rosewall, Federer and Djokovic won 4 Majors after turning 30.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
You're missing the whole point. In the GOAT game you can ignore anything you want and make anything you want most important. Then do it between eras just to make it even more subjective and nonsensical.
Which is why Renshaw will always be GOAT to me
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
It's pretty amazing that the guy who is most touted for longevity will lose this bragging right if he can't get another major, and Nadal wins another. ;)
Nadal is a mix of Rosewall (longevity), Connors (willpower) and Federer (assassin instinct)!
:cool:
 

TripleATeam

Legend
List of other records:

Most titles won at a single event
Most titles won at a single Grand Slam
Most consecutive Grand Slam titles
Highest win % in a season (50+ wins)
Highest win rate against top 10 players
Longest win streak
Most wins at each WTF
Most consecutive masters
Highest ranked opponents in a single slam
Most slams won in the 2000s
Most slams won in the 2010s
Most slams won while hair is longer than 8" in length
Most prize money won
Most exhibitions played
Most different surfaces played on
Greatest number of matches played in a single season
Largest footed slam winner
Least amount of clothing won while winning a slam title
Most amount of Australian Opens won while name is Novak Djokovic
 

Bill W

Rookie
This is most biased goat table I ever saw
Please, how is this biased? It reflects the current state of all three players in a set of actual MAJOR ATP records. All of which are subject to change in the years to come.
 

Bill W

Rookie
List of other records:

Most titles won at a single event
Most titles won at a single Grand Slam
Most consecutive Grand Slam titles
Highest win % in a season (50+ wins)
Highest win rate against top 10 players
Longest win streak
Most wins at each WTF
Most consecutive masters
Highest ranked opponents in a single slam
Most slams won in the 2000s
Most slams won in the 2010s
Most slams won while hair is longer than 8" in length
Most prize money won
Most exhibitions played
Most different surfaces played on
Greatest number of matches played in a single season
Largest footed slam winner
Least amount of clothing won while winning a slam title
Most amount of Australian Opens won while name is Novak Djokovic
Per my update to the original thread, I am not including every possible stat that people can think of.

Unless you also want to add "Most butt picks in a single match", and "Most ball bounces before a serve", of course
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
The GOAT (if there is such a thing) cannot be determined by only one accomplishment (i.e. Grand Slams). It should be determined by a list of important accomplishments, across an entire career. That seems to be fair enough.

1. Choose a series of major accomplishments (i.e. ATP records)
2. Weigh each accomplishment with a numeric value (open to discussion, of course) that normalizes the comparison. For example, having won the most Slams should be more valuable than the most 500s.
3. Whoever holds that record, earns the weighted points.
4. Add up the points earned, and that is your GOAT.

This DOES not compare the actual events against each other, but instead compares holding the record for the most wins in that event.

A quick example (i.e. snapshot in time) of this looks like this:


Accomplishment Type

Accomplishment Weight

Roger​

Novak​

Rafa​

Roger​

Novak​

Rafa​
No of Slams​

5​

20​

16​

19​

5​
No of ATP finals​

4​

6​

5​

0​

4​
No of Master 1000s​

4​

28​

33​

35​

4​
No of ATP 500s​

3​

23​

12​

20​

3​
Total Singles Titles​

3​

102​

75​

84​

3​
Total Weeks at No 1​

3​

310​

268​

196​

3​
Longest Consecutive Weeks at No 1​

3​

237​

122​

56​

3​
Oldest #1​

2​

36+​

32+​

32+​

2​
Youngest #1​

2​

22 years, 178 days​

24 years, 43 days​

22 years, 76 days​

2​
Gold Medals​

4​

0​

0​

1​

4​
Calendar Year Grandslam
5​
0​
0​
0​
Non-Calendar Year Grandslam​
4​
0​
1​
0​
4​

Total​

23​

4​

10​

This would only be meaningful once all 3 retire, of course. So if Rafa surpasses Roger in slams, he goes up to 15, and Roger goes down to 18.

You could also do away with the weight and just give a point to the record holder.

NOTE: I want to be careful not to include every possible stat that can be thought of. They should be highly significant. There are already 12 categories.

What do you think?
H2H?

Holding all 4 slams at once?

Bonus points for surviving Mono?

Winning all 9 M1000s?
 

OhYes

Legend
Please, how is this biased? It reflects the current state of all three players in a set of actual MAJOR ATP records. All of which are subject to change in the years to come.
Because you have cherry picked stats where Fed looks great and gave to other 2 players big fat 0
 

TripleATeam

Legend
Per my update to the original thread, I am not including every possible stat that people can think of.

Unless you also want to add "Most butt picks in a single match", and "Most ball bounces before a serve", of course
Then the bias in the ones you choose is intrinsic. By including consecutive records, you implicitly value dominance in an extended period of time over total ability to be #1. Some would argue this allows a champion during a weaker period of tennis to flourish but stops a champion that might have only lost the #1 ranking for a short time between two very large stints.

You include ATP 500s, but don't include 250s. ATP 500s are not mandatory, and most are skipped by the top 5-10. 250s are in a similar position, but are not included.

No surface specific records are included.

You include youngest and oldest #1, but this does nothing but promote very young talents or very long lasting talents. After all, Agassi's ability to achieve #1 at such an old age only showed that he should have won more when he was younger, he shouldn't gain a considerable amount of GOAT points for that.

It's a very biased list. It's a good try, but it has a lot of issues with it, including not accounting for size of the leads in each category, and the fact that the one who picks out these categories in the end is you.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
GOAT debates often come down to two ways of thinking:

1. Tiebreaker method
2. Holistic method

Both of these methods value slams above all else, but tiebreakers use them as the first and only way of measuring greatness unless there is a tie, at which point other metrics come into play. The holistic approach uses these metrics from the start, and each user of this method weighs them differently. Often a slam is the most important thing though.

These extra metrics are (in order of most common measures of importance):
WTF or YEC
Weeks at #1 / YE#1
Masters / H2H
Titles
Olympics
Other metrics (Top 10 victories, win %, streaks, etc.)
Intangibles

A system that wants to try to numerically decide a GOAT needs to include a measurement for each of these and clearly identify if it will use the tiebreaker method or the holistic approach.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Per my update to the original thread, I am not including every possible stat that people can think of.

Unless you also want to add "Most butt picks in a single match", and "Most ball bounces before a serve", of course
Or most time-wasting between points, and racket smashes...
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
The most unbiased method in evaluation the player's placement in all-time great is use by the international panel of tennis experts from every continent.


PLAYER CRITERIA
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
Please, how is this biased? It reflects the current state of all three players in a set of actual MAJOR ATP records. All of which are subject to change in the years to come.
ridiculous list, a guy with 5 slams, 1 WTF and 3 ATP 1000 could be lower than a guy with 0 slams, 2 WTF, 5 ATP 1000 and 1 olympic gold lol
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
The OP's table is an embarrassment.

I sometimes wonder if some of the people here have any understanding of tennis and its history.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
I appreciate the attempt (I know the feeling of putting stuff out there, and having it criticized, sometimes with vitriol) but the winner-take-all categories and the way different categories are relatively weighted are problematic for me.

In many ways, ultimatetennisstatistics seems to have a good methodology, if not perfect, and they don't do winner-take-all categories.
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
I appreciate the attempt (I know the feeling of putting stuff out there, and having it criticized, sometimes with vitriol) but the winner-take-all categories and the way different categories are relatively weighted are problematic for me.

In many ways, ultimatetennisstatistics seems to have a good methodology, if not perfect, and they don't do winner-take-all categories.
yea, scoring system in any kind of sports doesn't work like that..it should be for example.. 1st place-10 points, 2nd place-7 points, 3rd place-4 points...
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
yea, scoring system in any kind of sports doesn't work like that..it should be for example.. 1st place-10 points, 2nd place-7 points, 3rd place-4 points...
For me, I don't know that this would work, either.

Assuming that it's a worthwhile exercise to even rank the best players, I think it starts with the time frame, and while the Open Era spans 50-plus years, that seems preferable...even if Laver, Rosewall, etc, would not be considered as many of their achievements preceded. open play.

From there, I would - with as little bias as I could - decide which categories to include and the weighting for each. At this point, I'm not a fan of assigning relative points by rank within a category.

The key is to minimize as much subjectivity and bias as possible.
 

Spencer Gore

Professional
Assuming that it's a worthwhile exercise to even rank the best players, I think it starts with the time frame, and while the Open Era spans 50-plus years, that seems preferable...even if Laver, Rosewall, etc, would not be considered as many of their achievements preceded. open play.
If you leave Laver out of any GOAT debate you have rendered your conclusions meaningless.
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
For me, I don't know that this would work, either.
From there, I would - with as little bias as I could - decide which categories to include and the weighting for each. At this point, I'm not a fan of assigning relative points by rank within a category.

The key is to minimize as much subjectivity and bias as possible.
agree with you, but still this method would be more accurate to decide that puzzle that OP want to solve
 

AceSalvo

Legend
The most unbiased method in evaluation the player's placement in all-time great is use by the international panel of tennis experts from every continent.
PLAYER CRITERIA
* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)
As always has been.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
i'm too late on this thread. :cry: i wonder what was said. :-D
The GOAT (if there is such a thing) cannot be determined by only one accomplishment (i.e. Grand Slams). It should be determined by a list of important accomplishments, across an entire career. That seems to be fair enough.

1. Choose a series of accomplishments
2. Weigh each accomplishment with a numeric value (open to discussion, of course)
3. Whoever holds that record, earns the weighted points.
4. Add up the points earned, and that is your GOAT.

A quick example (i.e. snapshot in time) of this looks like this:


Event Type
Event Weight

Roger

Novak

Rafa

Roger

Novak

Rafa
No of Slams
5

20

16

19

5
No of ATP finals
4

6

5

0

4
No of Master 1000s
4

28

33

35

4
No of ATP 500s
3

23

12

20

3
Total Singles Titles
3

102

75

84

3
Total Weeks at No 1
3

310

268

196

3
Longest Consecutive Weeks at No 1
3

237

122

56

3
Oldest #1
2

36+

32+

32+

2
Youngest #1
2

22 years, 178 days

24 years, 43 days

22 years, 76 days

2
Gold Medals
4

0

0

1

4
Calendar Year Grandslam5000
Non-Calendar Year Grandslam40104

Total

23

4

10

This would only be meaningful once all 3 retire, of course. So if Rafa surpasses Roger in slams, he goes up to 15, and Roger goes down to 18.

You could also do away with the weight and just give a point to the record holder.

NOTE: I want to be carefu not to include every possible stat that can be thought of. They should be highly significant. There are already 12 categories.

What do you think?

The OP had an interesting idea, but it didn't pan out.
 
Top