Is it possible to be the GOAT without winning the Australian Open?

[FrontHeadlock]

It's both generally accepted and correct that there are only 4 "must-win" events for any GOAT contender: the four majors.

Having said that, 2 of the four are on hard courts, the AO and the USO, which means that a player can show prowess and even all-time greatness on hard courts without winning both hard court majors. Showing prowess on all surfaces is one of the reason why winning different majors is such a big deal.

Given the greater current and historical prestige of the USO as compared to the AO, could a hypothetical player be the GOAT without winning the AO? Consider a hypothetical player with Roger Federer's exact resume, except instead of having a 6-1-8-5 Major title breakdown, he has SEVEN of each of RG, W, and USO, for 21 total Majors, but zero Australian Opens. GOAT? If not, why not? What would the AO title prove? Would it change your mind if the hypothetical player won EIGHT of each of RG, W and USO for 24 total Majors? Would the lack of an AO title really hold that player back from GOAThood?

Honestly, it'd be hard to call that hypothetical player anything other than the GOAT, as you couldn't make any meaningful surface criticisms of him.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Yes. AO hasn’t even been taken seriously by the top players since the mid to late 90s.

 

[Third Serve]

You could make a case for past players seeing as the AO wasn't considered as prestigious an event as the other three Majors up till the mid to late 80's I think. Many top players skipped it back then.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

You could make a case for past players seeing as the AO wasn't considered as prestigious an event as the other three Majors up till the mid to late 80's I think. Many top players skipped it back then.

No I even mean current players. What's the non-pedantic argument against someone with Fed's resume and 0-8-8-8 for the Majors? That he can't play on hardcourt?

 

[GabeT]

There is no greater current prestige of the USO

 

[FrontHeadlock]

There is no greater current prestige of the USO

But 0-8-8-8 would still be GOAT-worthy, right?

 

[GabeT]

But 0-8-8-8 would still be GOAT-worthy, right?

No

 

[Slowtwitcher]

Australian Open is the least prestigious of GS and far, far behind the other 3. Winning Monte Carlo, just to give an example, is more prestigious than the AO.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Australian Open is the least prestigious of GS and far, far behind the other 3. Winning Monte Carlo, just to give an example, is more prestigious than the AO.

No way come on. AO is still a very good tournament, even if it's slightly below RG, W and USO.

 

[GabeT]

No way come on. AO is still a very good tournament, even if it's slightly below RG, W and USO.

The only slam ahead of the others in prestige is Wimbledon.

 

[DSH]

Before, yes.
No, currently!

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Before, yes.
No, currently!

Why not currently? What's the reason other than to neurotically check a box?

Are you saying 8 wins at each of RG, W and USO, plus 6 wins indoor at the YEC, wouldn't make someone GOAT??

 

[Lleytonstation]

It's both generally accepted and correct that there are only 4 "must-win" events for any GOAT contender: the four majors.

Having said that, 2 of the four are on hard courts, the AO and the USO, which means that a player can show prowess and even all-time greatness on hard courts without winning both hard court majors. Showing prowess on all surfaces is one of the reason why winning different majors is such a big deal.

Given the greater current and historical prestige of the USO as compared to the AO, could a hypothetical player be the GOAT without winning the AO? Consider a hypothetical player with Roger Federer's exact resume, except instead of having a 6-1-8-5 Major title breakdown, he has SEVEN of each of RG, W, and USO, for 21 total Majors, but zero Australian Opens. GOAT? If not, why not? What would the AO title prove? Would it change your mind if the hypothetical player won EIGHT of each of RG, W and USO for 24 total Majors? Would the lack of an AO title really hold that player back from GOAThood?

Honestly, it'd be hard to call that hypothetical player anything other than the GOAT, as you couldn't make any meaningful surface criticisms of him.

Depends. Why would someone not succeed at both. Would be odd.

Think it clearly would show lacking skills on HC.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Depends. Why would someone not succeed at both. Would be odd.

Think it clearly would show lacking skills on HC.

To be clear, the 3rd most hard court majors of all time would show a *LACK* of skills on hard courts?

 

[GabeT]

To be clear, the 3rd most hard court majors of all time would show a *LACK* of skills on hard courts?

There are four slams. Today the expectation is that any GOAT candidate will have the CGS

 

[Lleytonstation]

To be clear, the 3rd most hard court majors of all time would show a *LACK* of skills on hard courts?

Well it would seem they are only good on one specific HC.

HC's are all very different. If you cant win on multiple HC surfaces then that is a problem.

 

[ND-13]

Given the historical context, I agree and would say if one had a choice of 0 majors at any one and 8 each at the others, every player is going to choose the AO to be 0

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Well it would seem they are only good on one specific HC.

HC's are all very different. If you cant win on multiple HC surfaces then that is a problem.

This person has Fed's record everywhere outside of the Majors, so he'd have 68 total HC titles, which would include 8 USOs and 6 YECs.

 

[Lleytonstation]

This person has Fed's record everywhere outside of the Majors, so he'd have 68 total HC titles, which would include 8 USOs and 6 YECs.

So why did he not win AO? What was the reasoning if he is so good on HC?

 

[Cashman]

Of course. Many people regard Pancho Gonzales as the GOAT, and he never won the AO.

What's more, he never won Wimbledon or the French Open either.

 

[Bender]

Australian Open is the least prestigious of GS and far, far behind the other 3. Winning Monte Carlo, just to give an example, is more prestigious than the AO.

I'd take Basel, Halle, Barcelona, Monte Carlo, or Cincinnati over AO any day

 

[FrontHeadlock]

So why did he not win AO? What was the reasoning if he is so good on HC?

Dunno, circumstance? Let's say he lost 3x in the finals, missed a few because of injury, etc.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Dunno, circumstance? Let's say he lost 3x in the finals, missed a few because of injury, etc.

Well, it would always be held against him. So I don't think it would be clear cut. Especially if someone is right on his tail in slams and has all 4.

However, the 7 on grass and clay kind of do wrap up the argument.

 

[r2473]

Margaret Court won lots of AO’s

 

[Lleytonstation]

Margaret Court won lots of AO’s

I am ready to pounce no matter which way this goes.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

I am ready to pounce no matter which way this goes.

(Billie Jean King)

 

[Cortana]

You must be kidding guys. If I could chose where I got 20 grand slam titles, I would take:

6 Wimbledon
6 French Open
6 Australian Open
2 US Open

 

[FrontHeadlock]

You must be kidding guys. If I could chose where I got 20 grand slam titles, I would take:

6 Wimbledon
6 French Open
6 Australian Open
2 US Open

You are one of very very few.

 

[ibbi]

I understand your argument. I do think if forced to choose between the two that winning on all the surfaces is MORE important than winning all the events, but you have to consider that the US Open and Australian Open hardcourts are not the same, the conditions they are played in are not the same, and they are two very different significant challenges.

Also, in a sport where 4 events are so heavily prioritized over all of the others, to play a long career, get near enough as many opportunities to win one as you do all the others, if you repeatedly fail to rise to that occasion and meet that challenge that would be a pretty big mark against any respective GOAT.

Also, also, this of course is only an argument against current and future players. Past ones who played during periods when that tournament didn't mean much should for sure not have it held against them.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Depends. Why would someone not succeed at both. Would be odd.

Think it clearly would show lacking skills on HC.

Out of all the hc slam winners Fed and maybe Lendl (and Wawrinka and Safin for the lols) have an ”even” resume while others are much better at the other slam

 

[BeatlesFan]

Yes. AO hasn’t even been taken seriously by the top players since the mid to late 90s.

@TheNachoMan Sorry, this is completely wrong. *All* of the top players started playing it in 1987 when it transitioned off grass and plenty of ATG's played it as early as 1982-83 (Lendl and Wilander). Just take a look who was winning it in the early to mid 1980's and into the 90's, almost all ATG's. Everyone took the AO seriously as of 1987, though it was then considered the fourth most prestigious slam.

 

[TennisProExpert]

Historically yes. If Borg could’ve won say 2 USO to make it 2 x 3 slam years then he’d be GOAT.

 

[TennisProExpert]

No I even mean current players. What's the non-pedantic argument against someone with Fed's resume and 0-8-8-8 for the Majors? That he can't play on hardcourt?

That player would be GOAT, for sure.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Just take a look who was winning it in the early to mid 1980's and into the 90's, almost all ATG's. Everyone took the AO seriously as of 1987, though it was then considered the fourth most prestigious slam.

It still is.

All the top golfers take the PGA Championship seriously, but nobody wants to win it because it's the PGA Championship. They only want to win it because it's designated as a Major. Same with the Australian Open. Whereas the Masters, the US Open and the British Open -- and in tennis RG, W, USO -- are all a bit more desired for what they are and for the history attached to them.

 

[Phoenix1983]

What’s interesting is, looking at the Open Era, that no ATG has the AO as their bogey slam.

It’s most generally been the FO (never won by Connors, Mac, Edberg, Becker, Sampras; the final slam title won by Agassi, Federer, Novak Djokovic).

Lendl and Wilander never won W.

Borg never won the USO, and it was the final slam title won by Nadal.

No ATG has ever truly been cursed at the AO. It’s simply taken as read that if you’re good enough to win elsewhere, you’ll inevitably win there (in eras where the ATGs play there).

Therefore a hypothetical of a guy winning 8 times everywhere else but never at the AO is just absurd.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

Given the historical context, I agree and would say if one had a choice of 0 majors at any one and 8 each at the others, every player is going to choose the AO to be 0

Thugios disagrees.

 

[ericarnett88]

..

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Sure. It’s possible to be a pre 1985 GOAT without AO titles. Anyone who entered his or her prime in the last 35 years had every opportunity to win it. Hardcourt is a neutral surface that a GOAT should excel in. Most of tennis is played on hard court. It is strange for a GOAT to have less hard court masters than Murray.

Nadal is the Clay goat. He would be the natural surface goat but 2 Wimbledon titles don’t cut it. Fed nor Djokovic are natural surface goats because of the single French. Fed is the grass goat. If not for Nadal, Fed would be natural surface goat. If not for Federer, Nadal probably would have 2 more Wimbledon’s (2019 is a possible so maybe 3) and he would be the natural surface goat.

Fed and Djokovic have the advantage of being more well rounded due to their mastery of hard courts at slams, masters, 500s, and the WTF. Nadal needs to do more on hard courts to be GOAT. Fed still has the title, although, it is diminishing.

I think you meant to post this in another thread? It's not really relevant here. This is about a hypothetical player with Fed's resume except with a Major count of either 0-7-7-7 or 0-8-8-8.

Surely someone with 7/8 USOs, 22 HC masters and 6 YECs would have shown sufficient prowess on hard courts, yes?

 

[King No1e]

Yes. AO hasn’t even been taken seriously by the top players since the mid to late 90s.

As opposed to before the 90's, when Connors and Borg took it VERY seriously

 

[mbm0912]

Australian Open is the least prestigious of GS and far, far behind the other 3. Winning Monte Carlo, just to give an example, is more prestigious than the AO.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I think you meant to post this in another thread? It's not really relevant here. This is about a hypothetical player with Fed's resume except with a Major count of either 0-7-7-7 or 0-8-8-8.

Surely someone with 7/8 USOs, 22 HC masters and 6 YECs would have shown sufficient prowess on hard courts, yes?

Someone that good on HCs would have won the AO at least once. So your hypothetical is absurd.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

As opposed to before the 90's, when Connors and Borg took it VERY seriously

Yup. McEnroe also barely played it as well.

And look at even players like Edberg, he won it before his prime really.

Lendl played it a lot because Lendl was a striver, but even Lendl skipped it in 81 and 82.

Agassi didn't play it for half his career. And Pete skipped it in 91 and 92 and pretty clearly didn't care about it as much.

Roger was probably the first player to really push for AO titles from the beginning.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Someone that good on HCs would have won the AO at least once. So your hypothetical is absurd.

Look over there ----------------->

It's my point, could you grab it for me pls?

 

[Phoenix1983]

Look over there ----------------->

It's my point, could you grab it for me pls?

In which case, your point is wrong.

Someone aspiring to be GOAT needs to win at all the major venues. It's irrelevant that two are on HCs - he needs to win at both the HC slams.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

In which case, your point is wrong.

Someone aspiring to be GOAT needs to win at all the major venues. It's irrelevant that two are on HCs - he needs to win at both the HC slams.

That's certainly a valid argument, but why outside of "check the box"? That's too robotic of an argument for me.

For example, does anyone think McEnroe or Borg is less of a grass player because neither won the AO?

 

[Phoenix1983]

That's certainly a valid argument, but why outside of "check the box"? That's too robotic of an argument for me.

For example, does anyone think McEnroe or Borg is less of a grass player because neither won the AO?

Their era was different. The YEC was the 4th major then rather than the AO.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Their era was different. The YEC was the 4th major then rather than the AO.

It was? Link?

 

[Phoenix1983]

It was? Link?

Knowledge of tennis history is the link.

 

[Beckerserve]

In a GOAT debate the AO has to be excluded as too many past greats did not take it seriously. Borg the prime example. McEnroe the other and Connors. As its on hard court it should not prejudice any player to remove it as there is the USO on hard.
The Slam Race at the 3 oldest Majors which encompass the three surfaces is as follows.

1. Nadal 19
2. Federer 14
3. Sampras 12
4. Borg 11
5. Djokovic 9
6. Connors 8
7. Mcenroe 7
8. Lendl 6
9. Agassi4
10. Edberg 4
11. Becker 4

Once recency bias disappears once Big 3 are long retired i think the above list is very accurate of the order of the Open era. Agassi and Djokovic perhaps can leapfrog a couple of spots for having won on each surface.

 

[Third Serve]

In a GOAT debate the AO has to be excluded as too many past greats did not take it seriously. Borg the prime example. McEnroe the other and Connors. As its on hard court it should not prejudice any player to remove it as there is the USO on hard.
The Slam Race at the 3 oldest Majors which encompass the three surfaces is as follows.

1. Nadal 19
2. Federer 14
3. Sampras 12
4. Borg 11
5. Djokovic 9
6. Connors 8
7. Mcenroe 7
8. Lendl 6
9. Agassi4
10. Edberg 4
11. Becker 4

Once recency bias disappears once Big 3 are long retired i think the above list is very accurate of the order of the Open era. Agassi and Djokovic perhaps can leapfrog a couple of spots for having won on each surface.

lmao