Graf the greatest female player of all time on all surfaces

abmk

Bionic Poster
Can you prove this member has more than one TT identity?

Can you prove it is impossible for more than one human being to have a similar view, mode of debate or writing style?

If not, this carries the stench of paranoia--the idea that one view or member cannot sound/post/champion/dislike a subject like another.

Proof is required.

similar ??? similar ????? they are IDENTICAL, EXACT REPLICA, which you'd notice if you got tangled into arguments with any of the other above identities For proof, read polaris' posts ...
 

Gizo

Legend
similar ??? similar ????? they are IDENTICAL, EXACT REPLICA, which you'd notice if you got tangled into arguments with any of the other above identities For proof, read polaris' posts ...

Agreed. It really is obvious. It's interesting to see that numerous posters have picked up on this in the past, and that this one person has tirelessly ploughed through seemingly dozens and dozens of IDS over the past few years. Many of these aliases post in the same threads and always agree with each other.

It's also interesting to see that davey25 didn't post for about 4 years between late 2005 and late 2009, and then suddenly reappeared after grafselesfan and numerous other aliases had been banned, posting in exactly the same tone and style. I did have suspicions that this was yet another alias during the Australian Open this year, although I was slow to detect that this was the case with anointedone and thalivest as well.
 

LDVTennis

Professional
This is obvious without stalking. Only a little time on the forum is enough to reveal that thalivest and davey25 and anointedone are the same person. The different identities have slightly different personalities but are, by and large, in agreement about the greatness of Steffi Graf.

At any given time of the day, one of these identities is active. The timestamps indicate that this person spends nearly his entire time on this forum, generating threads by the dozen, carrying out conversations with himself, voting in polls multiple times and generally deceiving everyone on the forum.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. It may be against the rules of the forum, but it has not materially affected my experience of the board.

From my experience, all the screen names you noted have a history of posting constructive comments. They really have not been disruptive.

We got on this tangent because of a poster who has a history of trivializing any discussion, whose developing consensus he does not like, with claims that "it's just tennis" or "it's just more of the same from Graf fanatics." That to me is more disruptive than someone with more than one identity who actually tries to contribute some information or idea.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. It may be against the rules of the forum, but it has not materially affected my experience of the board.
For me personally, it is against the rules, against basic internet etiquette and it makes this forum worse. I want to engage in a good discussion, not manipulative fan-baiting from some attention seeker. I don't want to be in a discussion in which I am talking with 8 people, all of whom are (in reality) just one person.

The mods have been excellent about banning this fellow's multiple IDs, but it is humanly impossible for them to keep up. It is interesting to me that you see nothing wrong with this.
 
Last edited:

krosero

Legend
About multiple ID's and whether it's wrong, just ask yourself whether the poster doing it wants you to know it. Obviously he doesn't because it's meant to be deceptive -- for whatever reason.

There are any number of things that a poster could do with multiple ID's. Pretend that his view is supported by another person. Start up a "debate" over an issue, by getting two ID's to "debate" each other. Stuff a poll with his votes. Set up straw man arguments that even he doesn't believe, so he can knock them down. Etc.

I don't see how any of this can be seen as right. Or even as harmless. Of course it harms a discussion board.
 

BTURNER

Legend
"Stuff a poll with his votes"

Krosero, IMO this it the only point with merit. The rest of the 'deceptions', while a bit juvenile, do not inhibit me from enjoying the dialogue. But if I worry about them, or if others around me do, it affects the nature of the dialogue. Again, I left a post for Liveliest ages ago. I will get no reply because others are focused on a control issue. His soks did not interfere, you guys discussing them did. I don't care how many are 'against my side' or who is setting up a straw man.
 

krosero

Legend
"Stuff a poll with his votes"

Krosero, IMO this it the only point with merit. The rest of the 'deceptions', while a bit juvenile, do not inhibit me from enjoying the dialogue. But if I worry about them, or if others around me do, it affects the nature of the dialogue. Again, I left a post for Liveliest ages ago. I will get no reply because others are focused on a control issue. His soks did not interfere, you guys discussing them did. I don't care how many are 'against my side' or who is setting up a straw man.
I hear you, but I just can't see this as a control issue. Maybe that issue is present, but I can't set aside the basic fact that it's dishonest to have multiple ID's. Whatever else might be said about what's going on in this particular case, that basic fact doesn't go away.

Now, it's possible, and perfectly legitimate, that some posters are not personally troubled by this one example. And it's true that talking about it takes up time that could be spent talking about tennis. But as I see it, it's perfectly right that we should stop and talk about it, because over the long run the board will be better off for it.

I have very, very few thoughts about this one individual case. It's just not my particular concern. What I'm talking about -- what seems to me important -- is the general issue of multiples ID's on a discussion board.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
"Stuff a poll with his votes"

Krosero, IMO this it the only point with merit.
Yes, he's done that a few times.

The rest of the 'deceptions', while a bit juvenile, do not inhibit me from enjoying the dialogue. But if I worry about them, or if others around me do, it affects the nature of the dialogue. Again, I left a post for Liveliest ages ago. I will get no reply because others are focused on a control issue.

Bturner, here are a few questions I have. Do you really think that the reply that you will get from Liveliest is sincere? Or, do you think it will be a reply consistent with the "Liveliest" avatar's views with no real regard for sincerety? And do you care if the reply is sincere or not? If the answer to the second question is "No", then I really have no argument here because all this is predicated on the assumption that people care about having a genuine (as opposed to a manipulated) discussion. Are we so starved for internet debate that it does not matter even if we are just pawns in an attention-baiting scheme ?

I don't care how many are 'against my side' or who is setting up a straw man.
But, why would you want to waste your time debating a straw man? I realize that it's just tennis, but still !! It would be much more sincere and enjoyable if he sticks to one username and then resumes posting all day long explaining how all different views can or cannot be reconciled. He could set up all straw men that he wants with one username. The very fact that he feels the need to have more than one (against forum rules) indicates that there is a problem here.
 

BTURNER

Legend
" Do you really think that the reply that you will get from Liveliest is sincere? Or, do you think it will be a reply consistent with the "Liveliest" avatar's views with no real regard for sincerety? And do you care if the reply is sincere or not? If the answer to the second question is "No", then I really have no argument here because all this is predicated on the assumption that people care about having a genuine (as opposed to a manipulated) discussion"

LOL Well I am the son of a law professor if that tells you anything. I grew up on the Socratic method of discussion at dinner times. Long as I was learning, he'd argue for ethnic purity a la Mein Kampf on Tuesday and for slave reparations on Wednesday! I was taught to presume the sincerity of the debater so as to avoid AD Hoc temptations. In essence, I would treat Liveliest as a different poster than Davey if they came with matching fingerprints, because that's the way he or they want to play it. The case made in the post makes the discussion genuine, regardless of the identity. If I am sincere and I am, they can't take it away!

"It would be much more sincere and enjoyable if he sticks to one username and then resumes posting all day long explaining how all different views can or cannot be reconciled. He could set up all straw men that he wants with one username."

here I totally agree. My Dad did not pretend he WAS Adolph Hitler or Jesse Jackson. But its no dealbreaker for me. It's the imposter's loss more than mine. I'll keep learning and probing anyhow!

Now my question: You can't control him, or his decisions to engage this way , so why not let go, and read what you want and learn thereby? If the site bans, it restricts our access to his knowledge replaces it with a game of wack-o-mole!

Edit: I am taking no stance on the validity of the allegations. I did not look at links for proof. What I don't know won't hurt me and if I don't even feed my own suspicions ,They won't even itch!!
 
Last edited:

krosero

Legend
Now my question: You can't control him, or his decisions to engage this way , so why not let go, and read what you want and learn thereby? If the site bans, it restricts our access to his knowledge replaces it with a game of wack-o-mole!
If this is what you meant by control issue -- that by asking a poster to stick to one username we're controlling him -- then I couldn't disagree more. Asking someone to stick to one username is simply asking them to do what everyone is asked to do. It would cost him nothing -- except the chance to play whatever games multiple aliases allow people to play.

I mean for me it simply comes down to this: we should all play by the rules (of the forum), rather than play games with people.

And that's the thing about genuineness. I mean in those conversations you mentioned with your father, you knew what you were getting: one person trying out different arguments on you. You knew the person in front of you and you knew that's how it was going to go. That seems perfectly genuine to me. But that's not the case here. Someone takes multiple aliases on an anonymous internet board, all it does is cause confusion and resentment -- and it encourages others to play the same game of hide-and-seek (or baiting people, or getting unfair advantages in debates, or whatever it is that's being attempted with multiple aliases). I mean I can't see ANY way in which any of this is good.
 

krosero

Legend
Yes, he's done that a few times.
And stuffing a poll with votes is just a formalized version of giving your arguments the appearance of being well-supported. That's what happens when multiples alias all appear to make the same argument (or one alias makes the argument and another says, "Good post, I support this"). It happens both ways. Stuffing a poll is just a formal way of doing it (with votes, with numbers). But it's not fundamentally different from the other ways of giving an argument the appearance of support.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
My Dad did not pretend he WAS Adolph Hitler or Jesse Jackson.
Exactly the point. Your Dad was educating. This fellow is deliberately misleading and taking you for a ride that you, out of tolerance, are more than willing to take.

But its no dealbreaker for me. It's the imposter's loss more than mine. I'll keep learning and probing anyhow!
But, my question is: Why do you want to learn from an imposter, especially one who manipulates discussions, manipulates polls and generally violates the rules of the forum? There are other people with equal amount of knowledge, vastly more insight and zero manipulativeness on the forum. By tolerating him, you are indirectly telling him that it is ok to keep generating multiple IDs.

Now my question: You can't control him, or his decisions to engage this way , so why not let go, and read what you want and learn thereby?
True. Perhaps true. It just runs counter to my view of good behavior on the internet. And, I don't quite understand why asking the fellow to abide by forum rules amounts to controlling him.

Edit: I am taking no stance on the validity of the allegations. I did not look at links for proof. What I don't know won't hurt me and if I don't even feed my own suspicions ,They won't even itch!!
We disagree here (respectfully). The proof exists. It contains an admission from this guy that he has multiple IDs. It is not even debatable.

krosero said:
And stuffing a poll with votes is just a formalized version of giving your arguments the appearance of being well-supported. That's what happens when multiples alias all appear to make the same argument (or one alias makes the argument and another says, "Good post, I support this"). It happens both ways. Stuffing a poll is just a formal way of doing it (with votes, with numbers). But it's not fundamentally different from the other ways of giving an argument the appearance of support.
True. Sometimes though, I feel that it is not worth getting worked up about. Very few people seem to care, as visible from this thread.
 
Last edited:

BTURNER

Legend
"But, my question is: Why do you want to learn from an imposter, especially one who manipulates discussions, manipulates polls and generally violates the rules of the forum? There are other people with equal amount of knowledge, vastly more insight and zero manipulativeness on the forum. By tolerating him, you are indirectly telling him that it is ok to keep generating multiple IDs."

See, I can learn from both, unless multiple threads and discussions are being derailed by the allegations and their examinations. You have to ask yourself how many personal little wars you are willing to tolerate and generate by asking who is, who isn't a sok. Don't just do math on multiple ID's. Do it on debates about multiple ID's


"True. Perhaps true. It just runs counter to my view of good behavior on the internet. And, I don't quite understand why asking the fellow to abide by forum rules amounts to controlling him."

Asking him does no harm, the argument that ensues does! Think Captain Queeg in the episode of the missing strawberries.




"We disagree here (respectfully). The proof exists. It contains an admission from this guy that he has multiple IDs. It is not even debatable."

It may. I refused to look at it or judge it because it might bother me and compromise my enjoyment of his posts or more likely to engage in the wrong debate about the quality of the proof.

Now I am going back to the tennis. Graf is the best hard courter and red clay player of all time. Martina is the greatest on indoor carpet and grass. Evert is the best clay (green and red inclusive) Now let's debate that!
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
See, I can learn from both, unless multiple threads and discussions are being derailed by the allegations and their examinations. You have to ask yourself how many personal little wars you are willing to tolerate and generate by asking who is, who isn't a sok. Don't just do math on multiple ID's. Do it on debates about multiple ID's
Ok. I will not post any more about thalivest's multiple IDs in this thread. I have to say that I am a little disappointed at your insistence on defending him. It is a little bit like saying that I will continue to believe that Santa Claus is real because I like receiving presents for Christmas, even though there is no proof that Santa exists. There is not much one can do to argue such a position. So, I'll let you and Liveliest continue the tennis debate from here on in this thread.

Now I am going back to the tennis. Graf is the best hard courter and red clay player of all time. Martina is the greatest on indoor carpet and grass. Evert is the best clay (green and red inclusive) Now let's debate that!

There isn't much to debate about that. I don't disagree at all about those statements about Graf, Navratilova and Evert. I think that Graf is the greatest women's singles player that ever lived, while Navratilova is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Steffi herself said the same thing, and I agree with that assessment.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I think that Graf is the greatest women's singles player that ever lived, while Navratilova is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Steffi herself said the same thing, and I agree with that assessment.
Interesting way to look at it, with more than a bit of validity.
 

Joe Pike

Banned
...
I think that Graf is the greatest women's singles player that ever lived, while Navratilova is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Steffi herself said the same thing, and I agree with that assessment.

You are mistaken.
Steffi never claimed that she is the greatest women's singles player that ever lived.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
You are mistaken.
Steffi never claimed that she is the greatest women's singles player that ever lived.
You are quick to pounce. :)

I meant that Steffi mentioned that Martina is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about Graf would recognize that she would not boast about her accomplishments. It was Billie Jean King who said that Steffi is the greatest singles player of them all.
 
Last edited:
You are quick to pounce. :)

I meant that Steffi mentioned that Martina is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about Graf would recognize that she would not boast about her accomplishments. It was Billie Jean King who said that Steffi is the greatest singles player of them all.
Yep, that is Graf personafied. Graf was always a quiet, humble champion who let her racquet speak for her. Its not in Graf's nature to boast about herself publicly. Never has been.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
You are quick to pounce. :)

I meant that Steffi mentioned that Martina is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about Graf would recognize that she would not boast about her accomplishments. It was Billie Jean King who said that Steffi is the greatest singles player of them all.

Considering all accomplishments, doubles, mixed doubles, etc....hard not to point to Martina as GOAT. On GS alone, yes, Steffi has 22 titles and Martina and Chris "only" 18 a piece...(sick, huh?)... but, this did start as a conversation re: best across all surfaces, not GOAT.....

I still like Steffi & Chris as best "all surface" contenders just ever so slightly over Martina...
 

LDVTennis

Professional
Ok. I will not post any more about thalivest's multiple IDs in this thread. I have to say that I am a little disappointed at your insistence on defending him. It is a little bit like saying that I will continue to believe that Santa Claus is real because I like receiving presents for Christmas, even though there is proof that Santa does not exist. There is not much one can do to argue such a position. So, I'll let you and Liveliest continue the tennis debate from here on in this thread.

There isn't much to debate about that. I don't disagree at all about those statements about Graf, Navratilova and Evert. I think that Graf is the greatest women's singles player that ever lived, while Navratilova is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Steffi herself said the same thing, and I agree with that assessment.

Just what I thought. Could it be that your only problem with Davey and his/her multiple ID's is that in spite of all his multiple identities there is a consistency in his/her madness, that being that he/she thinks that Graf is the greatest tennis player ever?

You think that Navratilova is the greatest tennis player ever. And, you come here wanting confirmation of that. Instead, you get Davey and his multiple ID's manipulating polls and the discussion for the purpose it seems of making the argument that Graf was the greatest.

You know he's not the only one who thinks that way. And, the majority of us voting in these polls and writing our opinions are probably not multiple ID's of Davey. So, dismissing Davey isn't going to change the general opinion.

BTW, Graf said that Martina was the greatest when she was 17 or 18. She was always quite deferential. By the time Graf retired, she refused to answer the GOAT question at all.
 

LDVTennis

Professional
You are quick to pounce. :)

I meant that Steffi mentioned that Martina is the greatest women's tennis player that ever lived. Anyone who knows the slightest bit about Graf would recognize that she would not boast about her accomplishments. It was Billie Jean King who said that Steffi is the greatest singles player of them all.

It was BJK. It was Chris Evert. It was Tracy Austin. It was Virginia Wade. It was even Martina Navratilova. They all opined that Steffi was the greatest.
 

Joe Pike

Banned
Just what I thought. Could it be that your only problem with Davey and his/her multiple ID's is that in spite of all his multiple identities there is a consistency in his/her madness, that being that he/she thinks that Graf is the greatest tennis player ever?

You think that Navratilova is the greatest tennis player ever. And, you come here wanting confirmation of that. Instead, you get Davey and his multiple ID's manipulating polls and the discussion for the purpose it seems of making the argument that Graf was the greatest.

You know he's not the only one who thinks that way. And, the majority of us voting in these polls and writing our opinions are probably not multiple ID's of Davey. So, dismissing Davey isn't going to change the general opinion.

BTW, Graf said that Martina was the greatest when she was 17 or 18. She was always quite deferential. By the time Graf retired, she refused to answer the GOAT question at all.


No, Steffi said in 1999 that in her opinion Navratilova was the greatest ever.
But what else do you expect from Steffi?

Her success, elegance AND character are her winning combination.
Greatness is more than just success. It can be argued that Navratilova had as much success as Graf had. But Steffi's unique style of play, her fluid movement on the court AND her wonderful personality make her the greatest of all time.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
Just what I thought. Could it be that your only problem with Davey and his/her multiple ID's is that in spite of all his multiple identities there is a consistency in his/her madness, that being that he/she thinks that Graf is the greatest tennis player ever?

You think that Navratilova is the greatest tennis player ever. And, you come here wanting confirmation of that. Instead, you get Davey and his multiple ID's manipulating polls and the discussion for the purpose it seems of making the argument that Graf was the greatest.

You know he's not the only one who thinks that way. And, the majority of us voting in these polls and writing our opinions are probably not multiple ID's of Davey. So, dismissing Davey isn't going to change the general opinion.

Oh dear, you've got it all backwards. But just to be perfectly clear, that is not the reason at all.

Statistics are one thing, opinion is another. If you ask me to name my favorite women's player of all time, I would put Steffi waayyy ahead of Navratilova. In that sense, I agree completely with davey25's dozen IDs and with you folks. However, I also have the good sense to understand that in terms of achievements, longevity, versatility it is hard to ignore Martina. I have the good sense to understand that my opinion and davey25's opinion need not correlate with reality. I also have the good sense to understand that breaking forum rules is bad, even if I agree with davey25.

My beef with davey25 is because he breaks the rules of the forum and if everyone does what he did, it would make for a worse forum. Why is that so difficult to understand? I am quite amazed at the myriad ways in which people misinterpret things. Here is this guy flagrantly breaking rules, and you think I have ulterior motives for showing him up? Weird.

Anyway, I told Bturner upstairs that I am done with the complaining in this thread, and if it were not for your unfounded allegation, I would not have opened this topic again. So long. I think Bturner understood, but clearly you didn't.
 
Last edited:

Joe Pike

Banned
... However, I also have the good sense to understand that in terms of achievements, longevity, versatility it is hard to ignore Martina. ...


Achievements and longevity?
Winning 21 slams in less than 10 years doesn't prove longevity, yes.
But do we want to discriminate against heterosexual girls?

Versatily?
You mean as in being among the top two of all time on clay, grass, HC and carpet?

Oops ...
:):)
 

Lionheart392

Professional
Navratilova is often called the queen of longevity but she won her first and last slam 12 years apart, the same as Graf and Evert. Navratilova was 21 and 33, and Graf was 17 and 29. Just a case of Navratilova peaking later than most players, but also at the expense of early success.
 

Polaris

Hall of Fame
Winning 21 slams in less than 10 years doesn't prove longevity, yes.
It does indeed, and so does winning over 50 Grand Slam titles over many years. Still, I said that I liked Steffi's game much more than Martina's, so it does not make sense to quibble. Saying that Martina is good does not automatically mean that Steffi is bad. We ought to be more mature than that.

But do we want to discriminate against heterosexual girls?
I don't wish to dignify that with a response.

Versatily?
You mean as in being among the top two of all time on clay, grass, HC and carpet?

Oops ...
Please learn to spell before you pounce on other people. Also, please understand that saying Martina is versatile does not automatically mean that Steffi is not.
 
Last edited:

LDVTennis

Professional
Navratilova is often called the queen of longevity but she won her first and last slam 12 years apart, the same as Graf and Evert. Navratilova was 21 and 33, and Graf was 17 and 29. Just a case of Navratilova peaking later than most players, but also at the expense of early success.

For me, the arguments against Navratilova as GOAT are as follows:

1) At 18 majors versus 22 for Graf, why does it suddenly become relevant that Navratilova has so many more doubles titles? Martina didn't win those doubles titles alone and she surely did not have the same level of competition as a doubles player that she had as a singles player. So, why does that matter and just for her? On the men's side, how ridiculous would it be to claim that John McEnroe is greater than Sampras or Federer based on his number of doubles titles?

2) Of all the contenders for the GOAT title, Martina is probably the least versatile. Half of her 18 majors were won at Wimbledon. Only two of the 18 were won on clay.

3) At Martina's peak, she did not have the best competition of the four contenders for the GOAT title. She probably had the worst.

4) Of all the contenders for the GOAT title, Martina is probably the only one who actually campaigned for the title, both on the court and in press conferences. So, maybe we should judge her by her own high standards.

At her peak, Martina set out to win a calendar year, grand slam to match Margaret Court, but came up short. With Chris at least, we can say that the grand slam didn't mean as much as it did for Margaret, particularly in view of how the majors were somewhat diminished at Chris's peak by the emergence of the WTA tour. But, you can't say that about Martina. She knew what it was and actively sought to complete one. So, what does it say for Martina that an 18 year-old, one year removed from winning her first major, sweeps the majors, including Wimbledon by beating Martina no less.

It is almost like the Gods on Mount Olympus were trying to tell Martina something. You're not the GOAT, Steffi is.
 

LDVTennis

Professional
Oh dear, you've got it all backwards. But just to be perfectly clear, that is not the reason at all.

Statistics are one thing, opinion is another. If you ask me to name my favorite women's player of all time, I would put Steffi waayyy ahead of Navratilova. In that sense, I agree completely with davey25's dozen IDs and with you folks. However, I also have the good sense to understand that in terms of achievements, longevity, versatility it is hard to ignore Martina. I have the good sense to understand that my opinion and davey25's opinion need not correlate with reality. I also have the good sense to understand that breaking forum rules is bad, even if I agree with davey25.

My beef with davey25 is because he breaks the rules of the forum and if everyone does what he did, it would make for a worse forum. Why is that so difficult to understand? I am quite amazed at the myriad ways in which people misinterpret things. Here is this guy flagrantly breaking rules, and you think I have ulterior motives for showing him up? Weird.

Anyway, I told Bturner upstairs that I am done with the complaining in this thread, and if it were not for your unfounded allegation, I would not have opened this topic again. So long. I think Bturner understood, but clearly you didn't.

There is nothing weird about thinking that. If you think Davey25 has ulterior motives for doing what he does, why shouldn't other people presume the same thing about you? No one suspected Davey25's motives in this thread until you showed up to tell us that Davey wasn't whom he was purporting himself/herself to be.

You see if you are going to question other people's motives you can't expect not to have your own motives questioned in return. Clearly, you never thought about this irony before allowing your outrage to speak against you.
 

Gizo

Legend
The one stat which impresses me the most about Graf and is enough to put her top of the pile, it that she won the 3 most prestigious tournaments, the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open of course, in the same year 4 times (88, 93, 95 and 96). I find that stat even more impressive that her golden grand slam, completing the career grand slam 4 times over etc.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
For me, the arguments against Navratilova as GOAT are as follows:

1) At 18 majors versus 22 for Graf, why does it suddenly become relevant that Navratilova has so many more doubles titles? Martina didn't win those doubles titles alone and she surely did not have the same level of competition as a doubles player that she had as a singles player. So, why does that matter and just for her? On the men's side, how ridiculous would it be to claim that John McEnroe is greater than Sampras or Federer based on his number of doubles titles?

.

actually, a lot of people consider doubles and Davis/Fed cup in their GOAT assessment...raging debate on another thread re: Mac vs. Jimmy...many feel Mac is better because of his great doubles career. Just a different way of looking at it.
 

Gizo

Legend
Just what I thought. Could it be that your only problem with Davey and his/her multiple ID's is that in spite of all his multiple identities there is a consistency in his/her madness, that being that he/she thinks that Graf is the greatest tennis player ever?

There isn't an entirely consistent madness with Davey's IDs. He/she has also pretended to be a big fan of Navratilova and Seles under the usernames navratilovafan (very creative) and julesb. He/she used the julesb account in particular to write all sorts of trollish posts about how great Seles was and how Graf was the most overrated player in history. As I said on another thread I suspect that he used these accounts to deliberately post weak arguments in favour of Navaratilova, Seles etc and against Graf, to make the pro-Graf arguments used by most of his/her accounts seem even stronger. He/she needn't have bothered because you can easily argue about how great Graf was without creating dozens and dozens of accounts to either repeat your opinions or weakly contradict them.
Probably the most consistent viewpoint of all these aliases is the intense dislike of Capriati, and he/she even created a trollish Capriati fan account (capriatifanatic) to post that Capriati was the second best player of the 00s decade after Serena etc.
In short this person has far too much time on their hands.
 
Last edited:

DarkShadow

New User
For me, the arguments against Navratilova as GOAT are as follows:

1) At 18 majors versus 22 for Graf, why does it suddenly become relevant that Navratilova has so many more doubles titles? Martina didn't win those doubles titles alone and she surely did not have the same level of competition as a doubles player that she had as a singles player. So, why does that matter and just for her? On the men's side, how ridiculous would it be to claim that John McEnroe is greater than Sampras or Federer based on his number of doubles titles?

2) Of all the contenders for the GOAT title, Martina is probably the least versatile. Half of her 18 majors were won at Wimbledon. Only two of the 18 were won on clay.

3) At Martina's peak, she did not have the best competition of the four contenders for the GOAT title. She probably had the worst.

4) Of all the contenders for the GOAT title, Martina is probably the only one who actually campaigned for the title, both on the court and in press conferences. So, maybe we should judge her by her own high standards.

At her peak, Martina set out to win a calendar year, grand slam to match Margaret Court, but came up short. With Chris at least, we can say that the grand slam didn't mean as much as it did for Margaret, particularly in view of how the majors were somewhat diminished at Chris's peak by the emergence of the WTA tour. But, you can't say that about Martina. She knew what it was and actively sought to complete one. So, what does it say for Martina that an 18 year-old, one year removed from winning her first major, sweeps the majors, including Wimbledon by beating Martina no less.

It is almost like the Gods on Mount Olympus were trying to tell Martina something. You're not the GOAT, Steffi is.

When I was a kid I used to root for Martina in her battles with Steffi and wanted her to win at all costs, that is because I considered her game a lot more spectacular because of the volleys. Later I changed my mind. I don't look at the statistics because they are rather misleading, many of the finals that Steffi won or lost were hanging on a couple of points, if not less. And some of the points were not controlled by her, but by the mental state of her opponent, some line calls or even sheer luck. So the fact that Steffi won 22 GS and not 20 or 24, is not that relevant in this case. Same for Martina.

I don't like the fact that Martina's game is based on speculation, that her opponents were unable to pass her consistently enough. I don't think there is any creativity in that. Sure, she had technical creativity and skills in the way she volleyed, but not the strategic creativity that imo should be the cornerstone of the GOAT in any sport. Volleying was her plan A, B and C. I could be wrong, since I haven't seen that many of her matches, but I doubt it. So I don't understand how she can be called a versatile player. Chris had a lot more versatility than her, and had she been more athletic, she would probably had surpassed Graf as well in the versatility department. But Martina versatile? Can't see how.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
When I was a kid I used to root for Martina in her battles with Steffi and wanted her to win at all costs, that is because I considered her game a lot more spectacular because of the volleys. Later I changed my mind. I don't look at the statistics because they are rather misleading, many of the finals that Steffi won or lost were hanging on a couple of points, if not less. And some of the points were not controlled by her, but by the mental state of her opponent, some line calls or even sheer luck. So the fact that Steffi won 22 GS and not 20 or 24, is not that relevant in this case. Same for Martina.

I don't like the fact that Martina's game is based on speculation, that her opponents were unable to pass her consistently enough. I don't think there is any creativity in that. Sure, she had technical creativity and skills in the way she volleyed, but not the strategic creativity that imo should be the cornerstone of the GOAT in any sport. Volleying was her plan A, B and C. I could be wrong, since I haven't seen that many of her matches, but I doubt it. So I don't understand how she can be called a versatile player. Chris had a lot more versatility than her, and had she been more athletic, she would probably had surpassed Graf as well in the versatility department. But Martina versatile? Can't see how.

granted, Martina's primary goal in a match was to get to net at any cost...but she could rally and wait for that opening to move in. And, she could play on any surface. Plus, she could move that serve of hers around quite well. So, arguably, she had a versatile game. As versatile as Steffi or Chris? I tend to think not. But, w/Chris, I think it's important to recognize that she got more versatile in her playing style as she got older...in order to challenge Martina more effectively. When you look at Martina's losses, its really only to those who could "short circuit" her net game, i.e. Chris, Steffi, Hana, Tracy...very few played at the level high enough to even bother her... you needed someone with a very fine skill set to get Martina off her game plan, that was how well she executed.
 

Gizo

Legend
Another achievement that shows how versatile Graf was across the different surfaces, is that she's the only player who has successfully defended all 4 slams. In fact she's defended each slam at least twice, the Australian Open in 89 and 90, the French Open in 88 and 96, Wimbledon in 89, 92, 93 and 96 and the US Open in 89 and 96. I said on another thread that I consider winning back-to-back titles at slams to be a very impressive and significant achievement.

Peak Graf in 88-89 was scarily good to extent where you couldn't see how anyone was going to be heat her. I sure as hell didn't see her defeat to ASV in the 89 French Open final coming. I thought she was a lock to clean up the slams for a second year running.
That was period which I enjoyed watching her the most in, especially with her using her topspin backhand more often back then.
 

Joe Pike

Banned
actually, a lot of people consider doubles and Davis/Fed cup in their GOAT assessment...raging debate on another thread re: Mac vs. Jimmy...many feel Mac is better because of his great doubles career. Just a different way of looking at it.


You might have a point here if Jimmy had 4 slams and one Golden Grand Slam more than Mac ...
 

DarkShadow

New User
granted, Martina's primary goal in a match was to get to net at any cost...but she could rally and wait for that opening to move in. And, she could play on any surface. Plus, she could move that serve of hers around quite well. So, arguably, she had a versatile game. As versatile as Steffi or Chris? I tend to think not. But, w/Chris, I think it's important to recognize that she got more versatile in her playing style as she got older...in order to challenge Martina more effectively. When you look at Martina's losses, its really only to those who could "short circuit" her net game, i.e. Chris, Steffi, Hana, Tracy...very few played at the level high enough to even bother her... you needed someone with a very fine skill set to get Martina off her game plan, that was how well she executed.

Yes, but once Martina found someone who could execute, there was no backup game she could fall upon when she saw that she's getting passed at the net more often than not.

I agree about you regarding Chris. For example I don't agree with people that say Graf's prime was in 88-89, or Martina's in the early 80's, or Chris' in the late 70's, or Sampras and Agassi around 1995, etc. A player's prime is not necessary related to his age, but his environment. We're not talking about physical prime, but the prime of the whole package that is the tennis player. As they get close to 30, let's say they lose 10-15% or the physical abilities they had when they were 23-25. I sincerely doubt they lose more than 20%, unless they become seriously injured. But what they add in terms of strategy, knowledge, understanding of the game itself, clearly makes up for all the physical losses. This is valid in any sport, but moreso in tennis, because it is an individual sport and the mental side is the most important.

You need your opponent to push you. I think that's what happened to Chris in the later years. Same thing happened to Graf when Seles and Sanchez Vicario arrived (for different reasons). Should the Williams sisters and Davenport have come 10 years earlier, it's likely that Graf would have elevated her game even higher, because she would have been forced to do so.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Yes, but once Martina found someone who could execute, there was no backup game she could fall upon when she saw that she's getting passed at the net more often than not.

I agree about you regarding Chris. For example I don't agree with people that say Graf's prime was in 88-89, or Martina's in the early 80's, or Chris' in the late 70's, or Sampras and Agassi around 1995, etc. A player's prime is not necessary related to his age, but his environment. We're not talking about physical prime, but the prime of the whole package that is the tennis player. As they get close to 30, let's say they lose 10-15% or the physical abilities they had when they were 23-25. I sincerely doubt they lose more than 20%, unless they become seriously injured. But what they add in terms of strategy, knowledge, understanding of the game itself, clearly makes up for all the physical losses. This is valid in any sport, but moreso in tennis, because it is an individual sport and the mental side is the most important.

You need your opponent to push you. I think that's what happened to Chris in the later years. Same thing happened to Graf when Seles and Sanchez Vicario arrived (for different reasons). Should the Williams sisters and Davenport have come 10 years earlier, it's likely that Graf would have elevated her game even higher, because she would have been forced to do so.

Agreed; w/Martina, there was no "Plan B"..which is why I do think Steffi and Chris were ultimately more versatile across a wide variety of surfaces.
 
But, w/Chris, I think it's important to recognize that she got more versatile in her playing style as she got older...in order to challenge Martina more effectively.
I totally agree. Chris also became more physically fit as she aged in an attempt to keep up with Navratilova and the younger players.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
As I see it :

Best mens/womens players of the 60's - Laver/Court

Best mens/womens players of the 70's - Borg/Evert

Best mens/womens players of the 80's - Lendl/Martina

Best mens/womens players of the 90's - Pete/Graf

Best mens/womens players of the 2000's/Noughties - Fed/Serena

Just a guess tho, perhaps we may look back in the 2020's and say that Fed/Serena turned out to be the most dominant players in the 2010's also.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1

1970CRBase

Guest
Not a chance. Both are turning 29 this year.

Imagine if Fed wins the Calendar Slam this year or before he retires, which I am absolutely astonished to find myself rooting for, and IF the next recognised best player of the decade, assuming he isn't Fed, wins 10 + Slams but doesn't win the CS, I will think that Fed with his CS would have a strong contention to be the best of the decade. Fed will still be around for a long time. He will have a very long career seeing how well he manages his body and injuries. People say he's shanking and tanking now; I see it the total opposite underneath the surface.

As for Serena, everybody other than Kim and Henin just plain sux very much other than Venus @ Wimbledon. Serena's going to keeping playin' and keep collectin' a Slam or two here and there for years; but "lose" in early rounds or pull out with "injuries" at other events she doesn't like or care about. We'll likely be seeing Serena for a lot, lot longer than some of us want.
 

thalivest

Banned
Imagine if Fed wins the Calendar Slam this year or before he retires, which I am absolutely astonished to find myself rooting for, and IF the next recognised best player of the decade, assuming he isn't Fed, wins 10 + Slams but doesn't win the CS, I will think that Fed with his CS would have a strong contention to be the best of the decade. Fed will still be around for a long time. He will have a very long career seeing how well he manages his body and injuries. People say he's shanking and tanking now; I see it the total opposite underneath the surface.

As for Serena, everybody other than Kim and Henin just plain sux very much other than Venus @ Wimbledon. Serena's going to keeping playin' and keep collectin' a Slam or two here and there for years; but "lose" in early rounds or pull out with "injuries" at other events she doesn't like or care about. We'll likely be seeing Serena for a lot, lot longer than some of us want.

Time waits for nobody and everyone gets old. The womens game isnt going to stay as bad as it is now forever, there is only so long it can stay as bad as it is now. If even Navratilova the all time latest bloomer ever won a mere 1 slam after her 31st birthday Serena at 28 is not going to be winning slams for many more years. Forget it.

As for Federer winning the Calender Slam I highly doubt it, and even if he did it would likely be a last hurrah sort of thing. His play has been regressing in best of 3 events for awhile, it is only a matter of time before it catches up to him in slams.
 

Joe Pike

Banned
...
As for Serena, everybody other than Kim and Henin just plain sux very much other than Venus @ Wimbledon. Serena's going to keeping playin' and keep collectin' a Slam or two here and there for years; ...

I don't see Serena winning slams as a 30plus-year-old.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
On the men's side, how ridiculous would it be to claim that John McEnroe is greater than Sampras or Federer based on his number of doubles titles?
Not the least bit ridiculous.

If one is actually trying to ascertain the greatest tennis player and not the greatest singles player, then doubles is not only relevant, it is vitally unexcludable. Unless of course one argues that doubles is somehow not part of the game of tennis. That is a very silly idea indeed.

I would nominate Newcombe.

Federer? Sampras? Not even close.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Not the least bit ridiculous.

If one is actually trying to ascertain the greatest tennis player and not the greatest singles player, then doubles is not only relevant, it is vitally unexcludable. Unless of course one argues that doubles is somehow not part of the game of tennis. That is a very silly idea indeed.

I would nominate Newcombe.

Federer? Sampras? Not even close.

In Davis Cup doubles is very important.

I guess if you included doubles than Court and Navratilova are way above anyone.
 

Joe Pike

Banned
She just won the AO in dominant fashion, injured, wrapped up like a mummy...and still won...at almost age 29. You sound ridiculous.


Serena was 28 years and 4 months old when she won the AO 2010.
Not "almost age 29".

Her first tournament at 30+ will be in the year 2012.
And I definitely don't see her winning slams in 2012 or even later. No chance.
 

Joe Pike

Banned
Not the least bit ridiculous.

If one is actually trying to ascertain the greatest tennis player and not the greatest singles player, then doubles is not only relevant, it is vitally unexcludable. Unless of course one argues that doubles is somehow not part of the game of tennis. That is a very silly idea indeed.

I would nominate Newcombe.

Federer? Sampras? Not even close.


ITF tournaments are part of the game of tennis.
But no one thinks that tons of ITF tournament wins have any relevance in a GOAT discussion.

You know that you are in a lot of trouble if you have to come up with "doubles" or even "mixed doubles" :) titles to boost your fave's claim in the GOAT sweepstakes ...
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
You know that you are in a lot of trouble if you have to come up with "doubles" or even "mixed doubles" :) titles to boost your fave's claim in the GOAT sweepstakes ...
Yes, how absurd. Everyone knows that doubles or mixed doubles are a complete and utter joke.

Considering someone who won multiple slams in singles and doubles. How hilarious would that be? Of course they do not matter at all to anyone with half a brain. (But to someone with a whole perspicacious brain, they might.)


One wouldn't want to get "in trouble." (Of course, there is that gold medal.)
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
She just won the AO in dominant fashion, injured, wrapped up like a mummy...and still won...at almost age 29. You sound ridiculous.

Dominant Fashion? maybe in her 1st 4 matches yes, but she struggled past Azarenka, was down a set and 4-0, and while she raised her game she was still very lucky to get out of that. She needed 2 tiebreaks to defeat Li Na, and had plenty of patchy moments in the final against Henin...hardly "dominant Fashion". If you want to see what winning in Dominant fashion looks like, check out Maria Sharapova's 08 Aussie Run...that was dominant, Compare it to Serena's there year...not as much so.
 
Top