Greatest of All Time meanings

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
I would like to start a thread of what we might even mean by "greatest of all time."

1) Do we mean played the best/strongest tennis ever? If so did that level have to last longer then one set? At least a whole match? At least a month? At least a year, 3 years, 10 years etc?

Might the best/strongest tennis against one player not be so great against another? Is the idea that with the level of their game they would have beaten the most people by the largest margin or only the other top X players at a certain time. So their level may have given a couple games to lower level players but would be guaranteed to win against the top. For example someone had basically an unreturnable serve so no one could beat them but maybe their return game was not as good as someone else's.

If someone played the best tennis ever on one surface what about the player who played the best tennis on a different surface?

Is it even right to say they had to play the best tennis ever?

2) What if they made advancements in the actual game that changed the game might that not be a "greater" then just taking what others have done and doing it a slightly better?

Notice neither of the above two measures necessarily matches with what we normally do in these discussions - add up all the different awards and tournaments won or longest at number 1 etc.

Just for example Emanuel Lasker was World Champion at Chess for the longest time and is in a tie with Kasparov for the most World Championship Wins. But few would claim he played the strongest chess or advanced the game more then anyone else.

Getting back to the first notion:
In Chess we have computers that are stronger then any human that can objectively tell us which moves they think are strongest. And we still don't have a clear answer as to who played the strongest chess. The computer tends to dislike Kasparov (and Lasker) because he played moves that the machine would punish him. But Kasparov would go into those risky lines because he knew his opponent was weaker then him in those sorts of things. It is like he is hitting to someone's backhand when a computer doesn't think it is the best stroke to play at the time. The computer assumes the opponent will make the best move in response. But people sometimes know better.

So can we hope to know who played the strongest tennis? The only way I could imagine is someone who is hitting spots serving where we know they would not lose a game when they are at serve. But then when you go to tiebreak they would have to consistently have to hit those serves every time.

Then you add in technology. In chess computers helped people play better and racquets help people play better tennis today. Is it right to say someone like Lasker or Morphy who played chess before computers couldn't be as "great" at chess as even the top 1000 players today?

Chess also has a rating system that does not have a cap like UTR so people might think whoever has the highest rating on that rating system would be the best. Chess also has people that devised rating systems to give players ratings - compared to their peers.


Those are just a few thoughts I am sure I missed some other dynamics. Are we even *remotely* talking about the same thing when we say someone is the greatest of all time?
 

ND-13

Legend
Four important metrics

- what is the perception of the world in terms of your value (endorsements )

- who won most overall titles

- who won calendar slam

- was the player responsible for the transformation of the game in a big manner ?
 

Impetus

Semi-Pro
There is only one valid definition of GOAT. The most entertaining player gets the most sponsorships and earn the most money.
Anyone who tries to make it about titles haven’t understood the core of sport.

Clearly Djokovic is the best of all time and Federer is the greatest of all time.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
Four important metrics

- what is the perception of the world in terms of your value (endorsements )

- who won most overall titles

- who won calendar slam

- was the player responsible for the transformation of the game in a big manner ?

Interesting. Do you mean that in addition to playing the "strongest/best tennis?" Because none of these achievements would necessarily mean the person played the best tennis ever.

Perception/endorsement might mean you did great things for tennis by bringing it to the limelight and making money. But that could have as much to do with your nationality ethnicity personality historical situation (think Bobby Fischer - match in the thick of the cold war) etc then with your actual tennis game.
 

Moon Shooter

Hall of Fame
There is only one valid definition of GOAT. The most entertaining player gets the most sponsorships and earn the most money.
Anyone who tries to make it about titles haven’t understood the core of sport.

Clearly Djokovic is the best of all time and Federer is the greatest of all time.

Ok I forgot to mention this approach. But even here if more people are interested in the sport at the time then there will be more sponsorship and more money. And clearly better marketing and PR makes you a greater tennis player under this analysis right?
 

Genie Of the Bank

Hall of Fame
There is only one valid definition of GOAT. The most entertaining player gets the most sponsorships and earn the most money.
Anyone who tries to make it about titles haven’t understood the core of sport.

Clearly Djokovic is the best of all time and Federer is the greatest of all time.
Vice versa. Djokovic is the greatest of all time, Federer is the best marketed champion of all time.

rl2VCr.gif

It Doesn't Just Tell Time It Tells History (40/15)​

 

Hawks9451

Professional
Stan

Actually, no, it's the guy who won the most slams and is over 6'3:
Murray
 

nolefam_2024

Bionic Poster
If this were a criterion, it would completely disqualify Federer from any GOAT considerations

Look at the players coming up today and tell me how many of them play like Federer
Every single young player looks like a different type of djokovic. Their backhands the sliding everything is now becoming copy of Nole. Hug the baseline and play deep shots.

There are few variations but in general they all play like djokovic.
 

Impetus

Semi-Pro
Ok I forgot to mention this approach. But even here if more people are interested in the sport at the time then there will be more sponsorship and more money. And clearly better marketing and PR makes you a greater tennis player under this analysis right?
Sure.

But the core in all sport is entertainment.

We talk about good and bad characters, popularity, winning statistics, eras, marketing etc. It's ingredients, yes. The sum is entertainment.
 
If this were a criterion, it would completely disqualify Federer from any GOAT considerations

Look at the players coming up today and tell me how many of them play like Federer
at a high level Federer played like Sampras + Kuerten, Nadal played like Borg + Federer, and Djokovic played like Agassi + Federer!

anyway answer to thread is in my sig
 

jl809

Legend
Best player of all time: Federer

Greatest player of all time: Djokovic

Greatest player of all time that your gf tells you not to worry about: Murray

Best/greatest fast court player of all time: Sampras

Best/greatest slow court player of all time: Nadal

Most versatile player of all time: Borg

Highest peak of all time: Nadal in the USO 2013 QF versus Tommy Robredo
 

Razer

G.O.A.T.
Greatest Player of all time recordwise - Djokovic
Greatest Player of all time off the court (Popularity/Brand Value) - Federer
Greatest fast court player of all time - Sampras
Greatest slow court player of all time - Nadal
 

ND-13

Legend
If this were a criterion, it would completely disqualify Federer from any GOAT considerations

Look at the players coming up today and tell me how many of them play like Federer

Transformation in the sense - being one of the first in sport to play on all surfaces, every kind of playing style and so on
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
There is only one valid definition of GOAT. The most entertaining player gets the most sponsorships and earn the most money.
Anyone who tries to make it about titles haven’t understood the core of sport.

Clearly Djokovic is the best of all time and Federer is the greatest of all time.
Best and greatest are synonyms as per dictionary definitions, so nope. Being the best of all time is the same as being the greatest of all time.

The GOAT race is not a popularity contest in an individual sport like tennis, but rather a big titles (particularly Slams) contest. Novak Djokovic is the GOAT. Federer is the most popular, but third in the GOAT list behing Djokovic and Nadal.

As per the Merriam Webster, the most trusted American English dictionary:

Great: an outstandingly superior or skillful person.

Best; excelling all others.


Djokovic is the most superior tennis player as proved by his Slam count and excels all others of the sport in resume, and so is the greatest.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Best player of all time: Federer

Greatest player of all time: Djokovic

Greatest player of all time that your gf tells you not to worry about: Murray

Best/greatest fast court player of all time: Sampras

Best/greatest slow court player of all time: Nadal

Most versatile player of all time: Borg

Highest peak of all time: Nadal in the USO 2013 QF versus Tommy Robredo
Greattest and best are synonyms as per dictionary definitions. Also, there's no way Federer is a better player than Novak with a losing H2H, 4 less Slams, 2 less Career Grand Slams, less Big Titles, less Year-End #1, less weeks at #1 and a humilliating 0-3 in Wimbledon finals.
 

socallefty

G.O.A.T.
For me, BOAT (Best) can be highest level of play over one season while GOAT is always measured by accomplishments over a full career. For me, the BOAT is Djokovic in 2015-1H2016 playing the highest level of tennis I have witnessed in 45 years and the GOAT is Djokovic as measured by what he has achieved throughout his long career. 2nd in the BOAT race for me is Federer in his dominant period while the 2nd in the GOAT race is a tight race hard to call between Federer and Nadal. On most days, I think it is Federer, but especially during the clay season watching his excellence every year, I think it might be Nadal.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
For me, BOAT (Best) can be highest level of play over one season while GOAT is always measured by accomplishments over a full career. For me, the BOAT is Djokovic in 2015-1H2016 playing the highest level of tennis I have witnessed in 45 years and the GOAT is Djokovic as measured by what he has achieved throughout his long career. 2nd in the BOAT race for me is Federer in his dominant period while the 2nd in the GOAT race is a tight race hard to call between Federer and Nadal. On most days, I think it is Federer, but especially during the clay season watching his excellence every year, I think it might be Nadal.
Well said, and indeed, it's a close call between Fed and Rafa for the second spot.
 

Impetus

Semi-Pro
Best and greatest are synonyms as per dictionary definitions, so nope. Being the best of all time is the same as being the greatest of all time.

The GOAT race is not a popularity contest in an individual sport like tennis, but rather a big titles (particularly Slams) contest. Novak Djokovic is the GOAT. Federer is the most popular, but third in the GOAT list behing Djokovic and Nadal.

As per the Merriam Webster, the most trusted American English dictionary:

Great: an outstandingly superior or skillful person.

Best; excelling all others.


Djokovic is the most superior tennis player as proved by his Slam count and excels all others of the sport in resume, and so is the greatest.
Language is always normative and the fact that you think answers are in a dictionary is ludicrous.

Let's use AI:

FeatureGreatBest
EmphasisAchievement, QualitySuperiority
ComparisonRelativeAbsolute
SubjectivityMore SubjectiveMore Objective

Your logic is flawed because you only see greatness as a sum of results. The sum of greatness in tennis is entertainment and it can be personal and it can be for tennis as a whole.

In other words I can have Dustin Brown as my personal GOAT (and I do). For tennis in total it can only be measured by the total sum of entertainment. That all comes down to money, money, money and Federer absolutely win that contest by a million miles.

There is no doubt Djokovic is the best. If Nadal or Federer is the second best is a matter of interpretation of numbers. I wont participate in that discussion.
 

mahatma

Hall of Fame
Greatest of all time in terms of tennis is - someone who pretty much holds all the important records. Guess who?

Any player who doesn't even have the important records might be a great player, but not the greatest. Greatest by virtue of the superlative involved should have the records of the sport with him.

Easy peasy
 
GOAT is the player who at their peak dominated their profession and their rivals. It is why Mike Tyson is considered right up there in boxing, Maradona In soccer, Senna in F1 despite none having comparatively long careers compared to their rivals.
In cricket Muralitharan (a Sri lankan) had better numbers than Shane Warne but Warne is undisputedly the greatest ever leg spinner.
In tennis numbers has never determined GOAT. Federer was considered greater than Sampras a couple of years before he got the slam record. Sampras himself was being put at Laver levels as early as 1994!!!.
 
Top