GOAT ranking system

[Lew II]

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1 point for every year as #1
0.5 point for every year as co-#1
0.3 point for every year as co-co-#1
0.2 point for every year as #2
0.1 point for every year as co-#2

Top20:

1) Gonzales 7.4
2) Tilden 7.1
3) W. Renshaw 6.5
4) Laver / Federer 6.2
6) Sampras 6.1
7) Djokovic 5.9
8) Nadal 5.7
9) Rosewall 5.3
10) Kramer 5.0
11) Budge 4.7
12) Larned 4.6
13) L. Doherty 4.3
14) Borg 4.0
15) Lendl 3.9
16) R. Doherty 3.6
17) Connors / McEnroe 3.4
19) Pim 3.3
20) Cochet / Perry 3.2

 

[Standaa]

co-#1
co-co-#1

 

[Lew II]

2 or 3 players tied at #1

 

[NatF]

Had long debates on co-number ones in the former section. It's not something I agree with, you're either number one or you're not IMO.

Gonzalez rightly at the top for this metric regardless.

 

[Breakpointerer]

I don't get the co no. 1 thing, can someone explain?

 

[King No1e]

GOATzales finally getting the recognition he deserved

 

[clayqueen]

World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1 point for every year as #1
0.5 point for every year as co-#1
0.3 point for every year as co-co-#1
0.2 point for every year as #2
0.1 point for every year as co-#2

Top20:

1) Gonzales 7.4
2) Tilden 7.1
3) W. Renshaw 6.5
4) Laver / Federer 6.2
6) Sampras 6.1
7) Djokovic 5.9
8) Nadal 5.7
9) Rosewall 5.3
10) Kramer 5.0
11) Budge 4.7
12) Larned 4.6
13) L. Doherty 4.3
14) Borg 4.0
15) Lendl 3.9
16) R. Doherty 3.6
17) Connors / McEnroe 3.4
19) Pim 3.3
20) Cochet / Perry 3.2

picture to url
Is there no end to your angst.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Had long debates on co-number ones in the former section. It's not something I agree with, you're either number one or you're not IMO.

Gonzalez rightly at the top for this metric regardless.

Agree with your first sentence.

Strongly disagree with your second (and still don't understand why so many regard Gonzales as a deity).

 

[NatF]

Agree with your first sentence.

Strongly disagree with your second (and still don't understand why so many regard Gonzales as a deity).

Just agree to disagree man. You don't need to call people out every time they put Gonzalez on a pedestal

 

[Phoenix1983]

Just agree to disagree man. You don't need to call people out every time they put Gonzalez on a pedestal

True, but I'd like to disprove them.

 

[Third Serve]

I wonder how badly Gonzales got screwed over in the GOAT debate due to the absence of the ATP Ranking in his time.

 

[thrust]

I wonder how badly Gonzales got screwed over in the GOAT debate due to the absence of the ATP Ranking in his time.

Gonzalez began on the pro tour too young, IMO. He had only won 2 amateur slams before turning pro and his competition on the pro tour was rather weak the first 5 years or so, past peak Budge, Riggs, and the much smaller though great Segura. Size does matter, sorry to say. Sedgman was tough, but not in the same league as peak Hoad, Rosewall or Laver. When the open era began, Gonzalez was already 40 years old, which was too old to win a slam. In reality it is his lack of slam titles, not ranking for his being overlooked by some as a GOAT contender, which he is.

 

[Badasaplayer]

In before this thread become federer vs Djokovic vs nadal

 

[NatF]

I wonder how badly Gonzales got screwed over in the GOAT debate due to the absence of the ATP Ranking in his time.

All the pro era players get screwed because the bulk of their accomplishments aren't recognised by the ATP. Laver is the only one who gets major props and that's solely what ifs based on his Grand Slam in 1969.