N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
If you take all of the players who are considered to be all time greats and make them play for majors, they will all have less than their current totals.
Greatest Athletes In History Of Their Sport
- Thread starter TMF
- Start date
If you take all of the players who are considered to be all time greats and make them play for majors, they will all have less than their current totals.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Different eras, so going down that road is a bit of a cul-de-sac. All we can do is take their achievements, their level of play, and how well they played against their rivals, and compare.
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
For such a mild-mannered guy, you certainly do bring out some anger in people, Mustard.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I'm not quite sure what comment of mine you are referring to, regarding what is true or not.
If someone like Gonzalez dominated the entire field to the point of denying all of his competitors any major titles, then why would you not consider the era to simply be weak? It seems like the only way for a player to dominate and not be regarded as participating in a weak era is to be a great from the past.
Modern players are not given the same benefit of the doubt, despite it being much more likely that the average talent level of the current field is almost certain to be higher than that of the past due to sheer numbers.
I really just don't understand how anyone says that one person's domination means that they were just that good and another's is because the field was weak. If you suggest that the "competition was better" for the one player, then that implies that their domination wasn't as great as the second's. It seems like sour grapes to me.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Well said. Touche!
Some people are quick to claim Federer had it easy and claim, on the other hand, that Gonzalez or whoever would have cleaned up had they been "allowed" to (they were, they just chose not to). Surely if that was the case then the same *weak era* logic would then apply to their achievements?
Federer can't win. He's in the current era so it's much easier to apply a fine tooth comb over how he plays and his wins/losses than it is for guys back a few eras ago. Historical achievements are generally given more weighting in sport because it's a universal romantic notion for almost anything to make out like things used to be better.
Factually however, they often didn't.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
For such a mild-mannered guy, you certainly do bring out some anger in people, Mustard.
Story of my life
Even in his 40s, Gonzales looked a very impressive server and shotmaker. With the mobility of his younger years, he must have been incredible. Gonzales' achievements back this up.
Last edited:
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
That's not true in tennis. If anything, in professional tennis with its convoluted history, it's just the opposite.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I agree. Laver is the maximum they go back to in the mainstream media, and even then it's all about his 2 Grand Slams (1962 and 1969) made out as if they are equal, even though Laver was probably only the fourth best player in the world in 1962. Going back into the old pro/am days and the complexities of tennis at that time, they just don't do.
In early 1963, during his early period as a professional, Laver said that the level of the top professionals was so high that he would have to learn how to play tennis all over again if he was going to live with the likes of Hoad and Rosewall.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
That is the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps, if Gonzalez were to play at a higher level there would be no other greats from his era, and you would regard those other names similar to Federer's opponents.
The fact that Gonzalez was so successful even at an older age could even imply that the era was weak. We aren't talking about success at thirty, but at forty! He was either just that good or the field was just that bad, but there really isn't an objective way to decide. Throwing names around when they too are subject to the same type of subjectivity doesn't prove any points.
If Federer in his prime were to lose to someone who was aged forty, then there would be hell to pay on this forum, but you don't consider that as a mark against Laver?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
No, Gonzales was that good in his 40s. I've seen it with my own eyes on tape. In that famous match he had with Pasarell at 1969 Wimbledon, Gonzales saved 11 set points in the first set before succumbing on the 12th and losing the set 22-24. In the fifth set, Gonzales saved 7 match points, twice from 0-40 deficits, before coming back to win the match. I never felt like Gonzales would mess up his serving during the match, even at 0-40 and second serve. It was uncanny.
And this is a well past his prime Gonzales.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Right, like I said, there is no way to reach a conclusion objectively. I too have seen many players both on tape and live. For me, the most amazing tennis I have ever seen played is from Federer. That certainly doesn't make him the goat, otherwise this forum would be a happier place.
All I'm saying is that the entire discussion is completely subjective. It is obvious that there are a certain group of players who are a step above the rest, but determining the best one isn't some kind of science.
Like I said in a previous post, however, is that the only somewhat objective evidence one has to go by are achievements. Some players are unfairly robbed of the opportunity to gather as many as they could, but it is all a part of the game and of life. It takes more than just talent and hard work, it also takes luck and timing.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I'll never say it, I would rather die than say it. :twisted:
I sincerely hope that all of the players who were able to show sustained brilliance over their careers are remembered for their greatness. It just irks me that some people are so eager to try and cut down certain greats with arguments that have no basis in reality or logic.
Old-timers should avoid this argument at all cost, because it's only a lose-lose situation for them.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
If you check the Laver #2 thread then you will see that TMF asks about what term to call people who have been watching tennis for a long time, and at least pc1 says that old timer is alright. I really don't think that TMF means it as an insult, based off what was posted in that thread.
The term Old-timers has been use frequently for years in the former pro player talk forum and they are fine with it.
DjokerRules
Banned
This guy is the most intelligent poster here. Finally, someone with some sensibility and logic. Thank you.
NadalDramaQueen,
You ask why the Gonzalez era, since he has beaten them all, is not considered a weak era.
I can give you the answer (as I have done before): because players like Kramer, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman, Trabert , Laver and Segura were all-time greats in contrast to the current players Hewitt, Berdych, Söderling and so on.
When Federer faced truly great players like Nadal, he mostly lost.
I can't give you a better explanation.
Both is right: Pancho's opponents were awsome and yet he beat them all in long tours (with exception of Laver but he defeated the Rocket when being 42).
You ask why the Gonzalez era, since he has beaten them all, is not considered a weak era.
I can give you the answer (as I have done before): because players like Kramer, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman, Trabert , Laver and Segura were all-time greats in contrast to the current players Hewitt, Berdych, Söderling and so on.
When Federer faced truly great players like Nadal, he mostly lost.
I can't give you a better explanation.
Both is right: Pancho's opponents were awsome and yet he beat them all in long tours (with exception of Laver but he defeated the Rocket when being 42).
DjokerRules
Banned
If Gonzalez beat them all so consistently, then how was it possible for all of those other players to be considered greats? eg. there are 10 tourneys. Pancho wins 9 since as you say he dominated and beat them all. How could anyone else become great then if there was only 1 other tourney to win?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Sure, and the same applies to Jordan, or Schumacher, and almost any candidate all time great, including Sugar Ray Robinson, or Jansher Khan, or Gretzky, or Pele.
Taylor and Phelps are maybe further ahead of the nearest contenders relatively compared to other sports that I can think of, and possibly Kasparov.
DjokerRules
Banned
Karparov? No way man, peak for peak Bobby Fischer was the best. Sure Kasparov's stats were better overall but that's cause Fischer was a nut and didn't take it as seriously. Kasparov was Sampras and Fischer the Agassi of their times. If both player were mentally stable and you compare only talent, Fischer/Agassi wins.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
There is a quite overwhelming consensus on who the greatest ever chess player is. There is a camp for Fischer, but most advocates for Fischer as the goat that I've come across are from the USA (not saying you are). Likewise, there is a camp for Wilt and others (against Jordan), and a camp for Senna (against Schummi), and a camp for Tendulkar (against Don), and a camp for Ali (against Sugar Ray Robinson). There is probably a camp for Spitz. Is there a single champion of any sport who is regarded by 99.9% of people as the greatest ever? Kasparov and company certainly have the obvious majorities, no doubt, but which sportsman in history is truly and virtually, more or less, the undisputed greatest?
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I feel like you have missed the entire point, and are again just throwing names around while assuming that the players you listed are so much better than everyone else. I have already discussed why this isn't a valid argument.
If Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic didn't exist and we had "epic battles" between opponents who were obviously inferior (a fact that we would be oblivious to if they didn't exist) to those three, then it seems like many people here would consider that era to in fact be stronger because there is "more competition."
If there is more competition, there is less domination. Some people will say that in one era domination implies greatness, and that in others it implies a weak era. People will also say that the same thing about tough competition. The only difference is which era people are biased towards.
The fact that you can name so many "greats" from certain era's only means that they were more evenly matched then in eras that were dominated by a player or two. That is the only thing you can really take away from it, everything else is subjective and based on statements like "I have seen them play and I know they are great."
My point is, if everybody tries to "prove" their points with other points that are also flawed and refuse to follow any rules of reason whatsoever, then what is the point of discussing anything?
Michael Jordan -Basketball
Muhammad Ali-Boxing
Jim Thorpe-Track and Field
Lance Armstrong - Cycling
Wayne Gretzky-Hockey
Michael Phelps-Swimming
Usain Bolt -Sprinting
Babe Ruth -Baseball
Roger Federer -Tennis
Joe Montana -Football
Tiger Woods-Golf
Bruce Lee -Martial Arts
Dale Earnhardt -Nascar
Travis Pastrana-Moto Cross
Shaun White -Snow Boarding
Cristiano Ronaldo -Soccer
Tony Hawk -Skate Boarding
Michael Schumacher -F1
George St.Pierre-MMA
Muhammad Ali-Boxing
Jim Thorpe-Track and Field
Lance Armstrong - Cycling
Wayne Gretzky-Hockey
Michael Phelps-Swimming
Usain Bolt -Sprinting
Babe Ruth -Baseball
Roger Federer -Tennis
Joe Montana -Football
Tiger Woods-Golf
Bruce Lee -Martial Arts
Dale Earnhardt -Nascar
Travis Pastrana-Moto Cross
Shaun White -Snow Boarding
Cristiano Ronaldo -Soccer
Tony Hawk -Skate Boarding
Michael Schumacher -F1
George St.Pierre-MMA
DjokerRules,
I have not written that Gonzalez beat these all-time greates every day. In fact these were great amateur champions and fared also very well in the pro ranks.
Pancho beat them in long world series but of course not 50:0!
If you don't see a quality's difference between those like Kramer, Rosewall and Hoad on one side and those like Hewitt and Söderling on the other side, I just can help you...
I have not written that Gonzalez beat these all-time greates every day. In fact these were great amateur champions and fared also very well in the pro ranks.
Pancho beat them in long world series but of course not 50:0!
If you don't see a quality's difference between those like Kramer, Rosewall and Hoad on one side and those like Hewitt and Söderling on the other side, I just can help you...
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Bobbyone,
Please study the sport of tennis itself. You win or lose based on how well you do against the players that you have to play. A bunch of players within an era having a great deal of "feats" only means that more of the players are evenly matched, otherwise, less people would have so many feats.
Were Kramer, Hoad, Rosewall, and Laver playing at levels that are unreachable by today's players? I suppose it is possible, but it is unlikely, and I would think that an analysis of human performance in sporting over time would show that in fact the opposite is true.
Again, please use logic and reason to debate. Saying things like
"If you don't see a quality's difference between those like Kramer, Rosewall and Hoad on one side and those like Hewitt and Söderling on the other side, I just can help you..."
is a way to get around having to come up with facts to support your statements.
The problem is some people ignore the pool size in each generation. You can have a pool size of 100 players and another pool with 1,000 players, they both have the top 10 players. The chances of the top 10 players from the pool size 1,000 are likely to be better than the size 100. In Laver's case, his pool is a lot smaller than Federer. So if you take the top 10 in his era and have them compete against the larger pool of today, they would be ranked real low. Those slam winners in the 60s and early 70s could easily fall below the Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga, Del Potro, etc....
kiki
Banned
Kid, you may know about many sports, but certainly not " Soccer".having Cristiano Ronaldo as the greatest ever is a joke that doesn´t even make laugh.
I thought Eddy Merckx is considered the greatest cycling.
If you are talking about the greatest quarterback, then Montana is considered by many as the best. But if you're talking about the greatest NFL player of all time, it's Jerry Rice.
Shouldn't Nicklaus be ahead of Tiger? Having 4 more majors is HUGE.
Isn't Ronaldo is too early? And some have Messi ahead of him. Right now mostly you'll hear is either Pele or Maradona.
TERRASTAR18
Hall of Fame
not a bad list but needs improvement-
joe louis-Boxing
carl lewis-Track and Field
Lance Armstrong - Cycling
Wayne Gretzky-Hockey
Michael Phelps-Swimming
Usain Bolt -Sprinting
Bonds -Baseball
Roger Federer -Tennis
Jim brown-Football
Tiger Woods-Golf
Bruce Lee -Martial Arts
Dale Earnhardt -Nascar
james stewart-Moto Cross
Shaun White -Snow Boarding
pele -Soccer
Tony Hawk -Skate Boarding
senna-F1
anderson silva-MMA
changes highlighted
TMF,
True experts know: The depth of the field is better now but the top is not better now.
Take Laver's second GS: He had to deal with top players like Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, all of them Hall of Famers.
Federer a few years ago had to deal with a YOUNG Nadal, with Söderling, Berdych, Philippoussis, Hewitt.
Just taste the difference...
True experts know: The depth of the field is better now but the top is not better now.
Take Laver's second GS: He had to deal with top players like Rosewall, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, all of them Hall of Famers.
Federer a few years ago had to deal with a YOUNG Nadal, with Söderling, Berdych, Philippoussis, Hewitt.
Just taste the difference...
kiki
Banned
TMF is genetically UNABLE to appreciate the difference.
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Appeal to authority. Like I said earlier, it is extremely probable that the average talent level today is higher than in the past, and this also gives more of a chance for players to emerge who lie well outside of the expected levels.
Thanks for being unable to come up with any real data to support your claims. I'll respond to this (again) in more detail when you bring it up in your next post.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
Pretty much spot on. It's funny when people chastise anyone who says that Federer was great by attempting to point it out as merely their "perception" but if the tables are ever turned, then they resort to their mythical high ground of visual analysis that is without error.
Hello Zynic,
Rosewall: 23 majors; Newcombe: 7 majors; Roche: 1 major but as strong as Newcombe and lost three years due to injuries; Ashe: 3 majors; Smith:2 majors.
Compare this with the feats of the Federer opponents before Roger lost his domination.
No true expert would deny Federer the label "Great Player". But every true expert knows that there were a few greats ahead of Roger: Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Tilden, Borg and maybe Sampras.
care to name a few?
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
We both know Federer was too good to allow anyone to accumulate so many titles! Anyone who was on their way before Federer rose up was summarily beat down.
Again with the "true" expert, the true part meaning that they agree with you.
We can play this game all day if you want, or we can have a rational discussion about goat candidates without discounting what statistically speaking is easily the strongest era of all time.
What "true experts" are these?
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
BauerAlmeida
Legend
If we leave Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Di Stefano, Messi, Laudrup, Platini, Best, Nedved, Zidane, the real Ronaldo, Muller, Van Basten, and 50 other players out, then C.Ronaldo maybe the best.
The rest is pretty much okay. Fangio or Senna could be ahead off Schumacher and Nicklaus of Woods though.
Last edited:
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
If we leave Maradona, Cruyff, Pele, Di Stefano, Messi, Laudrup, Platini, Best, Nedved, Zidane, the real Ronaldo, Muller, Van Basten, and 50 other players out, then C.Ronaldo maybe the best.
The rest is pretty much okay. Fangio could be ahead off Schumacher and Nicklaus of Woods though.
Really, people thinking Ronaldo is the best that ever played makes me feel like there is no hope left for humanity. If there is ever a poll where more than 50% go for Ronaldo as the goat, the US, Russia, and China should give us the sweet release of MAD.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
I would say Jimmie Johnson for Nascar.
Tiger Woods for golf, LOL! No freaking way. He cant even win as many majors as Jack Nicklaus vs a way weaker field.
Lance Armstrong for cycling is even more ridiculous. Ignoring the fact he is one of the biggest dopers in history, he was a one event pony, the Tour de France. Other past greats were successful on all tours, at Worlds, some at Olympics. He is not even a top 5 cyclist of all time, maybe not even top 10. I read a cycling magazine put out 3 years ago that had him at #7 all time, which sounds about right (well if you think he isnt one of the biggest dopes ever which he is, which makes him more like #27 all time).
Ronaldo for soccer is almost as ridiculous as Lance Armstrong in cycling.
Bud Collins, Ken Rosewall, Raymond Lee and others
