If # of slams =, does # of YEC break the tie?

[pirateofthecarribean]

Let's say if Serena and Steffi both get to 22 slams, Serena gets to 6 YECs and Steffi gets to 5 YECs, would that mean Serena > Steffi?

Because slams are the highest ranked titles, YECs are second highest ranked titles.

 

[Netspirit]

Yes. But Serena is almost Finnish, so.

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Yes, of course, it does. Then Grand Slam finals.

 

[Inanimate_object]

Obviously the formula for GOAT is slams + 0.5*YEC + 0.2*Slam finals + 0.1*Slam semifinals + 0.01*weeks at No. 1 + career grand slam + 4*calendar grand slam + 0.05*average breaks per match - 2*average MTOs per match -100*avg Time violations per match

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Obviously the formula for GOAT is slams + 0.5*YEC + 0.2*Slam finals + 0.1*Slam semifinals + 0.01*weeks at No. 1 + career grand slam + 4*calendar grand slam + 0.05*average breaks per match - 2*average MTOs per match -100*avg Time violations per match

Only wins count. Only slams compare first. Only if slams tie would YEC break tie. If slams = and YEC = then Tier 1 break tie. If slams = and YEC = and Tier 1 = then Tier 2 break tie. And so on and so forth. Comparison is heirarchical top down.

 

[timnz]

Only wins count. Only slams compare first. Only if slams tie would YEC break tie. If slams = and YEC = then Tier 1 break tie. If slams = and YEC = and Tier 1 = then Tier 2 break tie. And so on and so forth. Comparison is heirarchical top down.

With full respect to you - Why?

I think a player with 10 slam wins + 5 Wtf has a superior record compared to a player with 11 slams and 0 Wtf.

Also in the methodology you are outlining, does Nadal total of 27 Masters 1000's (an amazing achievement when you think about it) count exactly the same as if he won zero Masters 1000's unless he is equal, in slams, to another great? In other words you are saying that if Nadal had one less slam than another player, and neither had WTF wins and the other player had no Masters 1000's either then the other player still has a superior record? Do you think 14 slams + 0 WTF + 27 M1000 < 15 Slams + 0 WTF + 0 M1000's ? I can't agree. It would be to ignore the enormity of winning 27 M1000's.

But each to their own

 

[DRII]

NOPE!

h2h is the TB...

 

[timnz]

NOPE!

h2h is the TB...

But that has its issues doesn't it? Players A, B and C on 8 slams each. Player A leads Player B in H2h who Leads Player C in H2h who leads Player A in H2H. Who has the greater record in that scenario? (I remember in early 83 that was the case with Connors dominating Lendl who was dominating McEnroe who was dominating Connors - things like that happen).

My point is H2h works like the above due to match ups. Also H2h should never be talked about without reference to surface and conditions.

 

[spirit95]

Weeks at #1 is the best tiebreaker imo. After that Slam finals. I don't think it should be YECs, given that they are only played on one surface.

 

[BGod]

Obviously the formula for GOAT is slams + 0.5*YEC + 0.2*Slam finals + 0.1*Slam semifinals + 0.01*weeks at No. 1 + career grand slam + 4*calendar grand slam + 0.05*average breaks per match - 2*average MTOs per match -100*avg Time violations per match

I.....disagree.

My issues with this formula:
10 Weeks at #1 is equal to one Slam Semifinal
Slam Final is a fifth of a Slam Win
The breaks, mto and time violations are fairly unimportant at this point in the formula after everything else is evaluated

 

[BGod]

But that has its issues doesn't it? Players A, B and C on 8 slams each. Player A leads Player B in H2h who Leads Player C in H2h who leads Player A in H2H. Who has the greater record in that scenario? (I remember in early 83 that was the case with Connors dominating Lendl who was dominating McEnroe who was dominating Connors - things like that happen).

My point is H2h works like the above due to match ups. Also H2h should never be talked about without reference to surface and conditions.

No kidding. H2H should only be considered if the players are within 2 years of age and per surface, not overall.

Due to draws, a player dominating on clay could be 5-0 against a player who dominates on hard court and only has a 2-0 against said player.

 

[tacou]

Not everyone even agrees majors are the end all be all stat for GOAT, so I don't know how/why everyone would agree YEC is second most important; a lot of people consider it an exo actually

 

[Towser83]

NOPE!

h2h is the TB...

THe scenario here was Graf and Serena. Don't make everything abut Fedal!

 

[timnz]

I.....disagree.

My issues with this formula:
10 Weeks at #1 is equal to one Slam Semifinal
Slam Final is a fifth of a Slam Win
The breaks, mto and time violations are fairly unimportant at this point in the formula after everything else is evaluated

I agree with that more than slams count even if two players have a different slam total. I just wonder how you determined your ratios eg you have a slam runner -up at 0.2 x a slam whereas the ATP has it at 0.6 of a slam (1200/2000) ie three times more weighty.

 

[Shaolin]

THe scenario here was Graf and Serena. Don't make everything abut Fedal!

Rafa fanboys are floating around lost at the moment. H2H discussions are their only form of hope to cling to.

 

[timnz]

Not everyone even agrees majors are the end all be all stat for GOAT, so I don't know how/why everyone would agree YEC is second most important; a lot of people consider it an exo actually

None of the players or tennis journalists regard the WTF as an exho.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Not everyone even agrees majors are the end all be all stat for GOAT, so I don't know how/why everyone would agree YEC is second most important; a lot of people consider it an exo actually

A slam is 2000 points a YEC is 1500 points if I'm not mistaken. Comparison is hierarchical. Someone who wins 1 slam > someone who wins 100 Tier 5s even though 100 Tier 5s have more points than 1 slam.

 

[Boom-Boom]

WTF break the tie, even before rankings.

 

[timnz]

WTF break the tie, even before rankings.

So do you think that a Player with 11 Slams and 0 World Tour Finals has a greater record than a Player with 10 Slams and 5 World Tour Finals, if all other things such as weeks at number 1 and other titles are equal? In my opinion, the latter player has the superior record.

 

[timnz]

A slam is 2000 points a YEC is 1500 points if I'm not mistaken. Comparison is hierarchical. Someone who wins 1 slam > someone who wins 100 Tier 5s even though 100 Tier 5s have more points than 1 slam.

I don't think it is hierarchical. At some stage there is relative value between the events (though there is disagreement as to what that relative value is). What about a comparison between player A who has won 11 slams + 0 WTF vs Player B with 10 slams + 5 WTF (all other things being equal)? I think that Player B has the superior record.

 

[timnz]

Here is a real example

Connors with 8 Slams + 1 WTF + 2 WCT Finals

vs

McEnroe with 7 Slams + 3 WTF + 5 WCT Finals

According to the hierarchical model suggested in this thread - Connors has the better record. But I am not sure I agree with that. McEnroe's 5 more season end finals, in my view easily makes up for Connors extra slam.

(Note: In Masters 1000 level equivalent events they have similar totals - so that isn't a tie break necessarily).

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Connors with 8 Slams + 1 WTF + 2 WCT Finals

vs

McEnroe with 7 Slams + 3 WTF + 5 WCT Finals

According to the hierarchical model suggested in this thread - Connors has the better record. But I am not sure I agree with that. McEnroe's 5 more season end finals, in my view easily makes up for Connors extra slam.

(Note: In Masters 1000 level equivalent events they have similar totals - so that isn't a tie break necessarily).

Comparison is hierarchical top down, level by level. If at 1 level one player > the other player, then the comparison ends. In this case, Connors > McEnroe.

This way of comparison is simple, effective, not debatable back and forth.

For example, if player A has 1 slam and nothing else and player B has 5 YECs, 8 Tier 1s, 9 Tier 2s, 10 Tier 3s, 11 Tier 4s, 12 Tier 5s and nothing else, then player A > player B.

 

[Boom-Boom]

So do you think that a Player with 11 Slams and 0 World Tour Finals has a greater record than a Player with 10 Slams and 5 World Tour Finals, if all other things such as weeks at number 1 and other titles are equal? In my opinion, the latter player has the superior record.

Agree with hou 100%. 10+5 is a far better achievement than 11+0

 

[timnz]

Comparison is hierarchical top down, level by level. If at 1 level one player > the other player, then the comparison ends. In this case, Connors > McEnroe.

This way of comparison is simple, effective, not debatable back and forth.

For example, if player A has 1 slam and nothing else and player B has 5 YECs, 8 Tier 1s, 9 Tier 2s, 10 Tier 3s, 11 Tier 4s, 12 Tier 5s and nothing else, then player A > player B.

I can't agree at all. 5 Season end finals are a very noteworthy achievement, that gets completely ignored in your system. I don't think 1 slam tops 5 Season end finals. There is a reason that the ATP rate the WTF at up to 3/4s the value of a slam (1500/2000). Now you might not rate them at 3/4s but to rate them at zero if the slam total doesn't match - I can't agree. 5 WTF's are an amazing achievement - only 3 players in 45 years have achieved that.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

I can't agree at all. 5 Season end finals are a very noteworthy achievement, that gets completely ignored in your system. I don't think 1 slam tops 5 Season end finals. There is a reason that the ATP rate the WTF at up to 3/4s the value of a slam (1500/2000). Now you might not rate them at 3/4s but to rate them at zero if the slam total doesn't match - I can't agree. 5 WTF's are an amazing achievement - only 3 players in 45 years have achieved that.

Slam points and YEC points may not stay constant year to year. Tier 1 are now Premier Mandatory in WTA now but the ranking level is the same, third behind slam and YEC. What does not change is the fact that slams rank top most and YEC ranks 2nd. That's why it's better not to add up total points of all the titles, but rather compare level by level top down, stopping when one player surpasses another player at any one level.

 

[timnz]

Slam points and YEC points may not stay constant year to year. Tier 1 are now Premiere Mandatory in WTA now but the ranking level is the same, third behind slam and YEC. What does not change is the fact that slams rank top most and YEC ranks 2nd. That's why it's better not to add up total points of all the titles, but rather compare level by level top down, stopping when one player surpasses another player at any one level.

Regardless of what the YEC is valued over the years - it still has some value. What you are suggesting is that it is no value at all unless slam numbers equal between players. When comparing great players often they don't have the same slam count (as was the case in the Connors/McEnroe example given) - so we compare a mix of achievements. The weighting we give to the various level events varies - but they are still given weight. For most of tennis history (and I have surveyed newpaper articles over 1970 to this decade), the WTF has been rated at only a little lower than a slam. Hence, they deserve to be given some weight. 5 WTF's rate more than 1 slam in my book and I am not alone in this.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

Regardless of what the YEC is valued over the years - it still has some value. What you are suggesting is that it is no value at all unless slam numbers equal between players. When comparing great players often they don't have the same slam count (as was the case in the Connors/McEnroe example given) - so we compare a mix of achievements. The weighting we give to the various level events varies - but they are still given weight. More most of tennis history (and I have surveyed newpaper articles over 1970 to this decade, the WTF has been rated at only a little lower than a slam). Hence, they deserve to be given some weight. 5 WTF's rate more than 1 slam in my book and I am not alone in this.

That's why it's top down. YEC comes into play if two players have the same # of slams. For example, if both Serena and Steffi end up with 22 slams, then # of YEC would come into play.

Not saying this is the only way to compare players, but it is one way. Other ways to compare, for example age, total number of titles, head to head, there is no one universally accepted system.

 

[timnz]

That's why it's top down. YEC comes into play if two players have the same # of slams. For example, if both Serena and Steffi end up with 22 slams, then # of YEC would come into play.

But where did your 'rule' come from? I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. A lot of people would say that 10 slams + 5 WTF is a greater acheivement than 11 slams + 0 WTF (all other things being equal).

It's fine to express your opinion. And I understand your system. I just don't believe that most would agree with it. Most would say in the 10 Slam + 5 WTF vs 11 Slams + 0 WTF that the former is greater.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

But where did your 'rule' come from? I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. A lot of people would say that 10 slams + 5 WTF is a greater acheivement than 11 slams + 0 WTF (all other things being equal).

It's fine to express your opinion. And I understand your system. I just don't believe that most would agree with it. Most would say in the 10 Slam + 5 WTF vs 11 Slams + 0 WTF that the former is greater.

It is my own rule. Everyone can make his own rule, like for example Michael Chang > Roger Federer because of age at winning first slam. Like I said, there is no 1 rule that's accepted by everyone.

 

[timnz]

It is my own rule. Everyone can make his own rule, like for example Michael Chang > Roger Federer because of age at winning first slam. Like I said, there is no 1 rule that's accepted by everyone.

I completely accept that. All opinions are valid. I was just trying to say, that I don't think that many would agree with that rule.

Thanks for the conversation - I have enjoyed it!

 

[jg153040]

It is my own rule. Everyone can make his own rule, like for example Michael Chang > Roger Federer because of age at winning first slam. Like I said, there is no 1 rule that's accepted by everyone.

That's not true, there are many rules that are accepted by everyone. Even if people say they don't accept them, their logic still says they do.

For example, people say Federer is not the goat, but Nadal is the clay goat.

They say we can't compare eras and slams aren't everything. But then the SAME people go and say Borg is greater than Roddick and Nadal is the clay goat.

Guess what criteria they use in all cases? That's right, TITLES.

In the end people talk big, but they are forced to revert to records. The only reason why some people don't agree is emotions, because they can't handle it. While their logic agrees, their emotions can't.

Look, everyone here voted Rafa for clay goat. They may say they don't agree on the criteria, but this is being hypocritical, because we all know why people voted for Rafa. So, they accept the same criteria.