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

[RaulRamirez]

I don't see that there's any prestige difference between the AO and the US - not for many years now.
But as to your question: Does a player - current and moving forward - need to win a career GS to be considered "GOAT"?
I would say "no", but it's hard to come up with a list of what they would have to have achieved in order to be considered.
This is more art than science.

 

[Beckerserve]

lmao

Just posted the stats. No opinions posted there. Or did i get the stats wrong? Happy to be corrected if so.

 

[Third Serve]

Just posted the stats. No opinions posted there. Or did i get the stats wrong? Happy to be corrected if so.

You included plenty of opinion there. Like how the AO should be excluded from the GOAT debate. Top players didn’t take it so seriously, I agree, but that was then and this is now. It gained the prestige in the 80’s. Check out all the top players that have played it from the 80’s on.

 

[Beckerserve]

You included plenty of opinion there. Like how the AO should be excluded from the GOAT debate. Top players didn’t take it so seriously, I agree, but that was then and this is now. It gained the prestige in the 80’s. Check out all the top players that have played it from the 80’s on.

You miss the point. How can it be in a GOAT debate if three legends never played it regularly? Why should Borg Mcenroe and connors be so disadvantaged?

 

[Third Serve]

You miss the point. How can it be in a GOAT debate if three legends never played it regularly? Why should Borg Mcenroe and connors be so disadvantaged?

I agree that it’s unfair to them, but we can discuss those player’s missed opportunities at the AO without diminishing other players’ achievements there.

 

[Beckerserve]

I agree that it’s unfair to them, but we can discuss those player’s missed opportunities at the AO without diminishing other players’ achievements there.

Not diminishing anything. Simply saying that to be fair to the earlier players we can exclude AO. If you read my post actually the order of the players is pretty much the same anyway. Djokovic i put 3rd and Agassi is uo a couple as well. Read the last part below the list.

 

[TennisProExpert]

You miss the point. How can it be in a GOAT debate if three legends never played it regularly? Why should Borg Mcenroe and connors be so disadvantaged?

Because big3 always played Australia. Comparing between eras yes it should be noted that past greats didn’t prioritise it as much.

 

[Beckerserve]

Because big3 always played Australia. Comparing between eras yes it should be noted that past greats didn’t prioritise it as much.

So the issue is can we have a GOAT debate? If we can then AO has to be excluded. Or we agree there cannot be a GOAT debate as eras cannot be compared and the GOAT term is yet another example of lazy journalism that became a good sound bite.

 

[Thetouch]

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?

Federer simply CANNOT not win the AO when he can already win 21 other slams while 8 are won on HC in your scenario anyway. Nadal and Djokovic are too good as well and have proven it at the US Open too. Nadal has only 1 AO but he was prevented by the other 2 from winning it at least 3 more times in the finals and Federer has been prevented even more by Djokal and you can make the same argument for RG and the other 2 majors. They all have won every Slam there is because they are simply too good to not win them compared to their competition.

 

[Cortana]

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.

It's the wrong way to look at it. A fair comparison would be if the other ATG get additional slams that they would have won if it mattered more back then. So:

20
20
17
14
etc.

 

[Beckerserve]

It's the wrong way to look at it. A fair comparison would be if the other ATG get additional slams that they would have won if it mattered more back then. So:

20
20
17
14
etc.

Its harder to do though as we dont know who would have won. I mean Mcenroe v Borg on AO grass? You wanna call that over a 5 year stretch?

 

[TennisProExpert]

So the issue is can we have a GOAT debate? If we can then AO has to be excluded. Or we agree there cannot be a GOAT debate as eras cannot be compared and the GOAT term is yet another example of lazy journalism that became a good sound bite.

Hard to compare eras.I think a lot would call Borg the GOAT with 3 USO wins at 15 slams, even without an AO. He probably would’ve made the trip if the grand slam was on the line.

 

[RaulRamirez]

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.

This is beneath ludicrous, but I'll reply anyway.
Nobody with any sense a) just rips away someone's achievements for no good reason;, and/or b) simply awards titles to players who didn't play in those tourneys.

But, let's look at part B of this equation.
Mac won all his majors from 1979-84, and actually played the AO in '83 (SF). So, he lost realistic chances in 1979-82 and 84.

Borg won all his majors from 1974-81, and skipped 1975-81. So, he lost chances from 1975-81.

Connors won the AO in 1974, and last won a major in 1983, so he had chances in 1976-83.

So, among them, let's say one of them won it every single year they had opportunities (and heck with the guys who actually played and won).

1975 - Borg
76 - Connors
77 -. Borg
78 - Connors
79 - Borg
80 -. Mac
81 - Connors
82 - Mac
83 - Connors
84 -. Mac
New adjusted totals, giving them (and nobody else including those who actually played and won) the benefit of the doubt:. Borg 14, Connors 12, Mac 10.

 

[Beckerserve]

This is beneath ludicrous, but I'll reply anyway.
Nobody with any sense a) just rips away someone's achievements for no good reason;, and/or b) simply awards titles to players who didn't play in those tourneys.

But, let's look at part B of this equation.
Mac won all his majors from 1979-84, and actually played the AO in '83 (SF). So, he lost realistic chances in 1979-82 and 84.

Borg won all his majors from 1974-81, and skipped 1975-81. So, he lost chances from 1975-81.

Connors won the AO in 1974, and last won a major in 1983, so he had chances in 1976-83.

So, among them, let's say one of them won it every single year they had opportunities (and heck with the guys who actually played and won).

1975 - Borg
76 - Connors
77 -. Borg
78 - Connors
79 - Borg
80 -. Mac
81 - Connors
82 - Mac
83 - Connors
84 -. Mac
New adjusted totals, giving them (and nobody else including those who actually played and won) the benefit of the doubt:. Borg 14, Connors 12, Mac 10.

But we are guessing there.

 

[Beckerserve]

Hard to compare eras.I think a lot would call Borg the GOAT with 3 USO wins at 15 slams, even without an AO. He probably would’ve made the trip if the grand slam was on the line.

Borg probably has had the biggest impact on tennis. Made it mainstream. And cool.

 

[RaulRamirez]

But we are guessing there.

THAT's your reply?!
Are you that dense?!

 

[Beckerserve]

THAT's your reply?!
Are you that dense?!

Oh the irony of your last sentence lol.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Oh the irony of your last sentence lol.

Not at all. It was actually written with restraint, and every bit of self-awareness, and awareness of your posting mentality.

You have no reasonable leg to stand on to rip away AO titles because 30 or so years ago not every tennis superstar competed there.
And even if I give the second part of your point the benefit of the doubt - and yes, I have great respect for Borg, Connors and Mac - and say that they would have carved up all of those 10 AO titles in question, you say "But we are guessing there".

It's too idiotic to reason with, though I tried to give your point some benefit of the doubt.
Maybe, you should take away all AO titles from everyone who has won the AO under any circumstances, and give Mac, Connors and Borg 10 more apiece.
Yes, there is a good chance that each of those three great players had a good chance to add to their slam haul had they not skipped those (roughly) 10 years between them, but put this in some perspective, which I tried to.

 

[CyBorg]

There have been attempts to figure out "adjusted majors" on the former pros board. Some very interesting and historically grounded attempts.

Instead of guessing how many Aussies Borg or McEnroe or Connors would have won, one can just try and figure out the top tournaments in each year and calculate adjusted majors on that basis.

For example, in Borg's case he won Dallas WCT in 1976 and the Masters in 1979 and 1980 - most likely the fourth most important tournaments in those years. So his total of adjusted majors would be 14.

This approach isn't perfect because in some years there's no clearcut fourth best tournament, but it gives you a rough idea.

Lendl would really benefit from this approach, because he won Masters in 1981 and 1982, as well as Boca West in 1986 (a 128-man draw). The 1987 Masters was also arguably more prestigious than the Aussie (which was the last played on grass). So you could adjust Lendl to have 11 or 12 majors.

 

[pj80]

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 its not...AO counts the same as other 3 majors

 

[Tony48]

For all intent and purposes, the answer is no.

Career grand slam is definitely a criterion for GOAThood.

 

[Sorry_to_tell_you_mate]

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??

What about a player who wins 20 times at RG (the slowest surface) and W (the fastest surface) and fails to win on HC?

Isn't 40 slams enough?

 

[Beckerserve]

Not at all. It was actually written with restraint, and every bit of self-awareness, and awareness of your posting mentality.

You have no reasonable leg to stand on to rip away AO titles because 30 or so years ago not every tennis superstar competed there.
And even if I give the second part of your point the benefit of the doubt - and yes, I have great respect for Borg, Connors and Mac - and say that they would have carved up all of those 10 AO titles in question, you say "But we are guessing there".

It's too idiotic to reason with, though I tried to give your point some benefit of the doubt.
Maybe, you should take away all AO titles from everyone who has won the AO under any circumstances, and give Mac, Connors and Borg 10 more apiece.
Yes, there is a good chance that each of those three great players had a good chance to add to their slam haul had they not skipped those (roughly) 10 years between them, but put this in some perspective, which I tried to.

Its easy. AO was irrelevant in 80s and even part of 90s. So in a GOAT debate is can be removed as we still have 3 older more historically important Majors on each surface. This is agreed by objective tennis fans. Obviously Djokovic fans wont agree even though his standing is unaffected. As i said in my post he is 3rd on list.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Pre 1988, yes.
But the parameters for GOAT keep changing (Olympics, Big titles, etc).
The GOAT argument is really a GOTE argument (Greatest of their era) but it's more focused on GOAT because that's more catchy and dramatic.
Now the AO is a bona fide slam, pretty much up there with the others, you have to win it to be GOAT.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Its easy. AO was irrelevant in 80s and even part of 90s. So in a GOAT debate is can be removed as we still have 3 older more historically important Majors on each surface. This is agreed by objective tennis fans. Obviously Djokovic fans wont agree even though his standing is unaffected. As i said in my post he is 3rd on list.

Sadly, your point is as ludicrous today as it was yesterday. As to your conclusion, that is also way off: I am a fan of tennis, rationality and fairness.

 

[RaulRamirez]

An easy thought exercise.
Did anyone consider Sampras the mythical GOAT when he pushed the OE record to 14 slams, along with 6 YE#1s, etc?
What if Roger, Rafa and Novak did not come along, and nobody else made it to 14:
Would Pete be out of the picture for mythical GOAT?

 

[FrontHeadlock]

An easy thought exercise.
Did anyone consider Sampras the mythical GOAT when he pushed the OE record to 14 slams, along with 6 YE#1s, etc?
What if Roger, Rafa and Novak did not come along, and nobody else made it to 14:
Would Pete be out of the picture for mythical GOAT?

No have to show prowess on all surfaces including clay.

 

[FrontHeadlock]

What about a player who wins 20 times at RG (the slowest surface) and W (the fastest surface) and fails to win on HC?

Isn't 40 slams enough?

No you have to show prowess on all surfaces including hard courts

 

[RaulRamirez]

No have to show prowess on all surfaces including clay.

Others may not have felt, or feel the same as you, or as me.
Before Roger's (and then Rafa's and Novak's) career eclipsed Pete's, I was okay with considering Pete the best of the (all) OE - the best since Laver. My hedge was to who was greater: Sampras or Borg. Of course, Borg only won two of the four, but essentially didn't complete at the AO and had tough luck at the US Open.
While it's great to have a career slam, I'm not about to think that Agassi's career was as great as Pete's or Bjorn's. And what if Stan somehow wins at Wimbledon?

 

[FrontHeadlock]

Others may not have felt, or feel the same as you, or as me.
Before Roger's (and then Rafa's and Novak's) career eclipsed Pete's, I was okay with considering Pete the best of the (all) OE - the best since Laver. My hedge was to who was greater: Sampras or Borg. Of course, Borg only won two of the four, but essentially didn't complete at the AO and had tough luck at the US Open.
While it's great to have a career slam, I'm not about to think that Agassi's career was as great as Pete's or Bjorn's. And what if Stan somehow wins at Wimbledon?

a career slam doesn’t cure all sins (sorry Maria), but to stake claim to GOAT you need to be able to play on fast and slow surfaces.

 

[RaulRamirez]

a career slam doesn’t cure all sins (sorry Maria), but to stake claim to GOAT you need to be able to play on fast and slow surfaces.

So, when Pete retired, who did you consider the GOAT (without saying Laver, Rosewall or someone previous)?

 

[FrontHeadlock]

So, when Pete retired, who did you consider the GOAT (without saying Laver, Rosewall or someone previous)?

Laver and Borg had the best claim.

connors also had a decent claim given the lack of AO play, his missed chances at RG in his prime because of lousy rules, and his USO title on clay.

 

[Daniel Andrade]

Let me write this straight up: if someone came and won wimbledon 35 times and absolutely NO OTHER SLAMS, that person would be the GOAT.

So yes, you could be GOAT without the AUSopen.

 

[Beckerserve]

Sadly, your point is as ludicrous today as it was yesterday. As to your conclusion, that is also way off: I am a fan of tennis, rationality and fairness.

Did Borg Connors and Mcenroe play AO every year? Yes and you win. No and i win.