Martina (167), Chris (154), Graf (107)...Serena (44)

[Evan77]

Are you kidding??? Serena beat everyone out there, beat Graf Seles Hingis Davenport, world number ones and grand slam champions when she was only 17. and then then Henin clijsters sharapova, she beat grand slam champion who is a decade younger.
and by the way don't forget that graf had from 93-96 no rivaly at all, it was just an empty path winning 10 slams.

right, she beat grand moms Seles and Davenport ... sure, agree with you about Graf (as I said earlier, God knows what Seles could have achieved if she hadn't been stubbed). Imagine if Nadal had been stubbed back in 2006, Fed would have won like 25 slams.

However, overall this is the weakest era in tennis history and Serena is taking full advantage of it. and she should.

 

[snowwhite]

right, she beat grand moms Seles and Davenport ... sure, agree with you about Graf (as I said earlier, God knows what Seles could have achieved if she hadn't been stubbed). Imagine if Nadal had been stubbed back in 2006, Fed would have won like 25 slams.

However, overall this is the weakest era in tennis history and Serena is taking full advantage of it. and she should.

Well, Davenport at 1999 US open was the defending champion, 22 at her peak when she beat her, beat Hingis at her peak, so did with others like Henin & Capriati. I agree with you with the weakness of the nowadays era, but it just doesnt matter for Serena as she beat top players at their peak on grand slams. when you look at her ways to win a slam you must find a defending champion or a world number one (or both), and that since she began winning slams in 1999

 

[Arafel]

Can someone explain to me how a calendar Slam is more impressive than a Serena slam? To me, winning four in a row is winning four in a row. That they all did or didn't occur in the same year is arbitrary. There is nothing more difficult about winning four in a row starting with the Australian than winning four in a row starting with the French. I am not saying one player is better than the other, but if Graf had never attained another Slam after her 1988 year, would her single year have qualified her as the Greatest of All Time? Maybe Graf is the GOAT, but I think putting that one year out as the defining measuring stick for someone's entire career is pretty silly.

Actually, I disagree with that statement, because I think it can be easier to get on a roll, and with the French, Wimbledon, and US so close together, it can be easier to carry your momentum through to the AO, for instance, in January, than to start strong right from the get go.

The Serena Slam is another media creation to pump up Serena as one of the all-time greats. However, I was following tennis in the 80s. Martina won six in a row and was only prevented from getting a Grand Slam by an out-of-her head Helena Sukova at the Australian in December 84. There was no talk of a "Martina Slam" for her when she got her fourth in a row at the 84 French.

The only Grand Slam is winning all four in a calendar year. Everything else is just marketing.

 

[NLBwell]

Number of tournaments itself doesn't matter that much but, to me, it is important how much and how long you are dominant. I really appreciate the effort Sampras made to get his 6th in a row year end number one ranking. Federer, Sampras, Laver, Navratilova, Graf, Evert were dominant throughout the year for many years. John McEnroe perhaps played the greatest tennis ever, but only for a couple of years of his career. I wouldn't put him in the list of the greatest. Similarly, I wouldn't put Serena Williams there. Certainly, there is a case to be made that such players could be considered the greatest. Each person can have their own critera.

 

[Soianka]

Can someone explain to me how a calendar Slam is more impressive than a Serena slam? To me, winning four in a row is winning four in a row. That they all did or didn't occur in the same year is arbitrary. There is nothing more difficult about winning four in a row starting with the Australian than winning four in a row starting with the French. I am not saying one player is better than the other, but if Graf had never attained another Slam after her 1988 year, would her single year have qualified her as the Greatest of All Time? Maybe Graf is the GOAT, but I think putting that one year out as the defining measuring stick for someone's entire career is pretty silly.

I agree. It is silly.

 

[Soianka]

Silly thread. Pros played differently back then, played more tournaments instead of keying on the majors. Serena, it should be noted, has the highest winning percentage in slam finals of any woman in the modern era.

Yes, it was a very different game in Graf's era and previous.

 

[DRII]

Sharapova's been the best player of the year (besides Serena), so of course she was in form. Did you even watch her match with Clijsters? She played so much better, Clijsters was sucking up the place and only made it close in the second set because of some lucky shots and a slight drop in play from Maria, BUT, she still closed it out comfortably.

And yes, some of those women you mentioned could match Serena's power, but Serena is much more than just brute strength. It's her court sense, athleticism, determination and mental strength COUPLED WITH her incredible power that makes her such a great player. Players like Davenport and Pierce could hit just as hard, yes, but they severely lacked in the other areas of their games in comparison to Serena. The only one you mentioned that, at peak level, could match Serena's abilities all-around was Venus but her groundstrokes and serve are too technically un-sound resulting in a much larger tendency to break down and really become a liability.

And don't get me started on the difference in serving...

The player of this year (besides Serena) is not really saying too much. If you don't realize that the current women's field is quite weak, then theres no helping you! The previous women's era was quite strong, this one is very weak relatively speaking...

And sorry but Serena is not the most athletic. Graf, Clijsters, to some extent Henin and especially Venus have her beat in that aspect. What Serena has is an amazing serve (especially against the current field of non-athletic returners) and yes, brute strength! She does not rely on technique or foot work for her power, its brute strength plain and simple. Her ground strokes are not exquisite and fluid like Davenport or Kivitova; her footwork and foot speed not exceptional like Graf or Henin; her athleticism and pace not as explosive as Venus.

Serena does have some guile and can lull in her play until she can power through the ball, something Venus never really had, which works against the current field. She also has good spin on her strokes now.

And yes i agree, Serena has some of the strongest mental toughness and drive I've ever seen. Enough to actually call her sister a beeotch on court (mouthing it during the 2003 Aussie final); or threaten a lines-person (you know what I'm talking about). While I find these acts near despicable, I understand that they mean Serena really cares about her chosen profession. Venus never cared enough to commit such acts!

I'm not denying Serena's greatness, although i pick peak Venus (the most explosive, fastest woman I've ever seen on a court) over Serena as far as ability is concerned. But you and others are negating how weak Serena's competition is right now. You're trying to have it both ways: ignoring the stats of players who have accomplished more like Graf, Navratilova, Court and Everett; and then ignoring the qualitative assessments of others based on Serena's performance against one of the weakest fields in women's tennis history...

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Actually, I disagree with that statement, because I think it can be easier to get on a roll, and with the French, Wimbledon, and US so close together, it can be easier to carry your momentum through to the AO, for instance, in January, than to start strong right from the get go.

Interesting.

The Serena Slam is another media creation to pump up Serena as one of the all-time greats. However, I was following tennis in the 80s. Martina won six in a row and was only prevented from getting a Grand Slam by an out-of-her head Helena Sukova at the Australian in December 84. There was no talk of a "Martina Slam" for her when she got her fourth in a row at the 84 French.

That is as true for Serena as it is for the "Agassi slam," the "Federer slam," or the "Sharapova slam," as each were incapable of going on that concentrated, dominant run of majors in the single season aka calendar year. That is the reason the tennis PTB, some of the media and certain fans tried to pump up the stat sheet when their players of choice failed to enter that time-honored class.

The only Grand Slam is winning all four in a calendar year. Everything else is just marketing.

Truth.

 

[BTURNER]

The grand slam is basically marketing, combined with tradition. The concept depends on arbitrary timelines and chronologies that are structured around the notion of a tennis 'season'. Its status presupposes that single season of near total dominance is of higher value than the same or even far greater achievements in the majors in two seasons or a season plus 5 months. Its a nice gift wrapped package.

Here you go a chronological listing of the women candidates for GOAT status in singles.

Suzanne Lenglen
Helen Wills Moody
Little Mo Connolly
Margaret Court
Chris Evert
Martina Navratilova
Steffi Graf.

Each was overwelmingly dominant over their fields for extended period of times. Each had extraordinary win loss records over their careers. And each has unique records and acheivements.

Its just too early to assess Serena's career in terms of GOAT status. She is still playing and gathering her resume together.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

right, she beat grand moms Seles and Davenport .

Get the facts straight: Serena and Davenport are from the same playing generation; Davenport turned pro in '93, Serena in '95, and played each other years before Davenport became a mother, so Davenport was one of the prime competitors.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Though I don't think Serena is the goat, or even TOP 5, what was mentioned there it's true. The "Serena Slam" it's as impressive as a "Calendar Grand Slam". It's the same thing, four in a row it's for in a row. It doesn't matter if they are in the same year or not.

 

[bluetrain4]

I honestly don't think anyone really puts Serena over any of those women. Yes, I know John Wertheim wrote an article last year arguing that Serena could be considered the greatest, and I know Evert has made some statements while commentating, but IMO, the overwhelming opinion among fans, commentators, historians, players, critics, is that while Serena is great, she doesn't surpass those players, so there's really no controversy. And, lower overall titles is often cited as a reason, as well as fewer Slam titles.

 

[JustBob]

No doubt she's among the greatest, but like so-called "career" slam Federer, she could not win the Grand Slam, so they both do not have the one thing recognized as being the accomplishment of a GOAT.

Please stop peddling that nonsense. The only person who believes that is you.

 

[snowwhite]

Number of tournaments itself doesn't matter that much but, to me, it is important how much and how long you are dominant. I really appreciate the effort Sampras made to get his 6th in a row year end number one ranking. Federer, Sampras, Laver, Navratilova, Graf, Evert were dominant throughout the year for many years. John McEnroe perhaps played the greatest tennis ever, but only for a couple of years of his career. I wouldn't put him in the list of the greatest. Similarly, I wouldn't put Serena Williams there. Certainly, there is a case to be made that such players could be considered the greatest. Each person can have their own critera.

Tennis is all about winning grand slams, even the list you mentioned they are so because they won many many grand slams, that what does really matter. I give you an example, you excluded Rafael Nadal for instance because of the number one thing, but winning a record in Grand slam (7 times) and winning all four doesn't keep you away from the lists.
and for Serena, compare her to Martina Hingis, 200 and something world number one, and she was losing in a slam after slam to Serena, while Serena won 14 slam with by far less weeks at no. 1, who is greatest?
ah, and one thing for the dominance Serena won her first slam in 1999, so you have 13 years pan, not many players can keep the winning composure that long.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Please stop peddling that nonsense. The only person who believes that is you.

Generations believe it, while certain kids who are fans of players who lacked the ability to show complete dominance in a season at the majors try to pump less than GOAT results.

 

[JustBob]

Generations believe it, while certain kids who are fans of players who lacked the ability to show complete dominance in a season at the majors try to pump less than GOAT results.

I already destroyed your silly argument once, do I really have to do it again?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

I already destroyed your silly argument once, do I really have to do it again?

You lack the capacity to "destroy" anything, and i'm glad to continue to throw historical consideration of the supreme accomplishments of players like Graf and Laver in your face. You cannot erase or rewrite history.

 

[JustBob]

You lack the capacity to "destroy" anything, and i'm glad to continue to throw historical consideration of the supreme accomplishments of players like Graf and Laver in your face. You cannot erase or rewrite history.

This "you must have a Grand Slam to be considered GOAT" is total bs. You made that up. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever to backup your silly claim.

In fact, the majority of tennis historians/experts/analysts/commentators/former players including Laver himself have stated that Federer is the GOAT. As it was explained to you numerous times, a Grand Slam (on two surfaces in Laver's case) shows domination over ONE season. That's it. It's a great accomplishment, but to claim that it somehow overrides all other accomplishments by a player during an entire career is bloody nonsense.

You are just one of those "I have to be right on the internet" types with an amazing ability to pursue an argument long after you have lost it...

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

You are one of those "I have to be right on the internet" types with an amazing ability to pursue an argument long after you have lost it.

You're still responding to it, indicating your own failure to win this deabte.

Amusing.

In fact, the majority of tennis historians/experts/analysts/commentators/former players including Laver himself

Tough one for you, as Laver, Sampras and McEnroe have all flipflopped on that topic in recent years with everything from "there's no way to say who is the greatest," to McEnroe repeatedly citing Laver and Sampras, so there's no longlasting history--or majority on your side. Sorry, kid.

Grand Slam (on two surfaces in Laver's case) shows domination over ONE season. That's it. It's a great accomplishment, but to claim that it somehow overrides all other accomplishments by a player during an entire career is bloody nonsense.

Conveniently, you do not mention Graf's Grand Slam (noted as much as Laver's) as it prevents you from using the pointless and deservedly ignored "surface" issue (usually a ploy of Federer extremists trying to con themselves), and returns the discussion back to the one accomplishment historically cited as being that of a GOAT, and has been for decades. Like Laver. Graf was called the GOAT after winning the GS, with years of her career left to experience, but you have no answer for the "why" she was crowned at that moment.

Now to the self-defeating part of your rant:

"you must have a Grand Slam to be considered GOAT" is ********. You made that up

...screams just how young you must be...utterly ignorant of tennis history as it happened and was recorded.

You are going nowhere fast, Bobby.

 

[JustBob]

You're still responding to it, indicating your own failure to win this deabte.

Amusing.

Amusing, but not as pathetic as pursuing an argument you have already lost numerous times.

I'm going to make this easy for you, name those (experts/historians/analysts/former players) who have claimed that winning a Grand Slam is an absolute must in order to be considered GOAT. Good luck...

FYI, Laver never flip-flopped on this, he never committed himself before Fed won Wimbledon in July. Which means that he's either senile or an idiot for being completely oblivious of the magnitude of his own accomplishments. Makes sense huh?

...screams just how young you must be...utterly ignorant of tennis history as it happened and was recorded.

You are going nowhere fast, Bobby.

I've been involved with tennis in different capacities for 30+ years, which means that not only do I know more about tennis than you ever will, but I'm most likely older than you. That's quite the losing streak you're on kid...

 

[Brian11785]

Actually, I disagree with that statement, because I think it can be easier to get on a roll, and with the French, Wimbledon, and US so close together, it can be easier to carry your momentum through to the AO, for instance, in January, than to start strong right from the get go.

This is totally illogical. How is carrying your momentum from the US Open to the Australian Open easy, when the time between the two slams is the one of the longest of any two? If anything, winning Wimby first then three more consecutive would be the hardest way to do it, momentum-wise, since that would be the four with the widest gaps in time between.

The Serena Slam is another media creation to pump up Serena as one of the all-time greats. However, I was following tennis in the 80s. Martina won six in a row and was only prevented from getting a Grand Slam by an out-of-her head Helena Sukova at the Australian in December 84. There was no talk of a "Martina Slam" for her when she got her fourth in a row at the 84 French.
The only Grand Slam is winning all four in a calendar year. Everything else is just marketing.

When did Martina win six in a row? I am seeing four in a row (just like Serena) from French 84 to Australian 85, but six in a row I don't see. I am not claiming that the Serena Slam is more special than this, or that Serena is the GOAT, I am just suggesting that there is nothing special about winning the calendar slam, other than the hype surrounding it.

And "the Grand Slam" isn't anything BUT marketing. The only thing possibly more difficult about the calendar slam is the pressure on you to win the US Open after you've won the first three. Pressure from the HYPE put on you by others. Hype = marketing. There ya go.

 

[TMF]

This "you must have a Grand Slam to be considered GOAT" is total bs. You made that up. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever to backup your silly claim.

In fact, the majority of tennis historians/experts/analysts/commentators/former players including Laver himself have stated that Federer is the GOAT. As it was explained to you numerous times, a Grand Slam (on two surfaces in Laver's case) shows domination over ONE season. That's it. It's a great accomplishment, but to claim that it somehow overrides all other accomplishments by a player during an entire career is bloody nonsense.

You are just one of those "I have to be right on the internet" types with an amazing ability to pursue an argument long after you have lost it...

I've said it before that he made that up. Because he despise Federer so much he'll go through any length to disparage Federer. But it doesn't matter how many times you have to explain it to him that almost every historians, journalists, ex-players have conceded Federer is the greatest, AND NONE have ever mention about the GS is the all and end all. Thundervolley simply is being dishonest.

 

[JustBob]

I've said it before that he made that up. Because he despise Federer so much he'll go through any length to disparage Federer. But it doesn't matter how many times you have to explain it to him that almost every historians, journalists, ex-players have conceded Federer is the greatest, AND NONE have ever mention about the GS is the all and end all. Thundervolley simply is being dishonest.

Not only that but some experts/historians who don't consider Federer GOAT have players such as Tilden or Kramer ahead of Laver. They must have missed Thundervolley's memo...

I don't care if someone ranks another player ahead of Federer but don't come up with some nonsensical argument you made up out of thin air to support your claim.

 

[MariaRafael]

Aside from that though Serena at her best beats everyone except on clay and she already has the greatest longevity ever.

Vow, I was pretty sure that longevity is associated with Martina Navratilova who played her last pro life when she was 49. At this age fat Williams won't be able to drag her obese carcass from one line to another.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

The reality: Federer is not a GOAT as he failed to win the one thing that makes one a GOAT: the Grand Slam--the accomplishment for all time...

We reject your reality/definition and substitute our own. Your decree does not make it so. Basing GOAT-ness on only one criteria is absurd. Let's take a look a closer look at your criteria.

Don Budge and Rod Laver (2x) are the only males to have accomplished this impressive feat. However, during their eras, one Slam was played on clay and the other 3 were all grass. Since '88, we have 4 different Slam surfaces (or 3 different surfaces if you want to consider DecoTurf the same as Rebound Ace or Plexicusion). This makes dominance of the 4 Slams much more difficult.

Point #2; The AO, in the past, was considered a much weaker Slam than the other 3. For a number of reasons, many of the top players, back in the day, did not play the AO. This, of course, meant the depth of the AO was somewhat less than the other 3 Slams. This is not the case today. In recent decades, the AO has attracted nearly all of the top players. This makes winning the AO more prestigious than it was in Laver's and Budge's eras.

Last point: Winning the Grand Slam involves more than a single player's prowess or dominance. It also relates to the strength of the rest of the field during that particular year. No doubt that there were other elite players present when Budge and Laver won their Gran Slams. But the relative strength of the field, as a whole, is different from one era to the next or from one year to the next.

During 2 of Federer's dominant years ('06 and '07), Roger was denied the the Grand Slam by the same guy, Rafa Nadal. This individual is considered to be the best (or one of the top 2) clay-courters of all time. In 2011, Djokovic had the most dominant year in modern tennis. However, his chance for the Grand Slam was thwarted by Federer in a SF at the FO. Again, the FO for that year was won by the clay-court GOAT (Rafa has won 7 of the last 8 French Opens).

 

[MichaelNadal]

Vow, I was pretty sure that longevity is associated with Martina Navratilova who played her last pro life when she was 49. At this age fat Williams won't be able to drag her obese carcass from one line to another.

Lol @ you thinking Serena is fat. She's always been this size since becoming pro and always will be. Must hurt to see the WTA get beat down for almost 15 years by someone with a "fat carcass."

 

[Arafel]

This is totally illogical. How is carrying your momentum from the US Open to the Australian Open easy, when the time between the two slams is the one of the longest of any two? If anything, winning Wimby first then three more consecutive would be the hardest way to do it, momentum-wise, since that would be the four with the widest gaps in time between.



When did Martina win six in a row? I am seeing four in a row (just like Serena) from French 84 to Australian 85, but six in a row I don't see. I am not claiming that the Serena Slam is more special than this, or that Serena is the GOAT, I am just suggesting that there is nothing special about winning the calendar slam, other than the hype surrounding it.

And "the Grand Slam" isn't anything BUT marketing. The only thing possibly more difficult about the calendar slam is the pressure on you to win the US Open after you've won the first three. Pressure from the HYPE put on you by others. Hype = marketing. There ya go.

Martina did not win four in a row from 84 French to 85 AO. As I stated earlier for all the people who don't care to learn about tennis history, the AO was played in December from 77-85, making it the last Slam of the calendar year, not the first.

When did Martina win six in a row? Well after being upset by Kathy Jordan in the 83 French Open, an upset that looked even bigger by the end of the year, as it was Martina's only loss in 1983 (she went 86-1!!), Martina won:

83 Wimbledon
83 US
83 AO
84 French
84 Wimbledon
84 US

She was going for a calendar year Slam at the 84 AO where she was upset by Helena Sukova in three sets in the semis, which also ended Martina's 74-match win streak.

Incidentally, Steffi Graf is the only other player in the Open era I can think of who won more than four in a row, when she won five from the 88 AO to 89 AO (the AO was moved back to January in 87). After losing in the 89 French in three sets to Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, she won the next three Slams, to have an 8-of-9 record.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Serena is not and never will be GOAT. Martina had to deal with Evert, Graf with Seles

Hahaha Seles was 15 years old and making her tour debut when Martina was already 33 and had won her last slam barring one miracle Wimbledon to come. Graf is 13 years younger than Martina. Lets credit Serena for facing Graf, Seles, and a future 10+ slam winner who might make her tour debut when Serena is 33 by that logic. Heck lets give her Navratilova too, Navratilova after all was playing a last Wimbledon singles many years after Serena started winning slams.

Martina faced Chris but as far as overall quality the 82-86 era she dominated was probably the worst womens tennis era in history, even worse than 2010-2011.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Vow, I was pretty sure that longevity is associated with Martina Navratilova who played her last pro life when she was 49. At this age fat Williams won't be able to drag her obese carcass from one line to another.

Serena has already won slam singles titles over a 13 year span, longer than Martina's which was 12 years. Martina also won 15 of her 18 slams and all her non Wimbledons over a 5 year span, that is not super longevity.

 

[sunof tennis]

Nobody cares much about minor events. You dont hear anyone saying Federer isnt as good as Lendl or Connors since he hasnt won about 100 tournaments.

Serena if she reaches 20 majors will be considered best ever by almost everyone. Even if she reaches 18 many will think she is. Remember Graf gained 2-5 extra slams by the Seles stabbing, and Court gained 4-7 extra by the Aussie Open status at the time so the real benchmark is in the 18-20 range. Aside from that though Serena at her best beats everyone except on clay and she already has the greatest longevity ever.

"...and she already has the greatest longevity ever" huh? How old was Martina when she won her last slam? I know it's not singles but didn't Martina win a doubles event like when she was almost 50?

 

[NadalAgassi]

"...and she already has the greatest longevity ever" huh? How old was Martina when she won her last slam? I know it's not singles but didn't Martina win a doubles event like when she was almost 50?

In singles Serena easily has more longevity than Martina. Like I already mentioned won slams over a longer stretch already, and Martina won almost all her slams and all 9 of her non Wimbledons over only a 5 year stretch. Martina's longevity is grossly overrated when her whole career was basically between ages 25 to 30, apart from a couple of her Wimbledon wins and a slew of small titles.

As for doubles, the doubles fields today are such a joke that any great player who plays pretty well in doubles should be able to win a mixed doubles slam or even a womens doubles slam in their mid 40s if they feel like it.
The Williams sisters can probably roll out of bed and win Wimbledon doubles together at ages 50 and 51 should they choose to, the way the doubles fields are going (and already were going by the time Martina was that age).

 

[kiki]

The Williams depend on their ( vast) physichal attouts.Not enough talent or creative tennis.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Amusing, but not as pathetic as pursuing an argument you have already lost numerous times.

...which is hardly as shameful as a person claiming victory while illogically returning to the same battle.

Reality of situations are not clear to you, stripling.

name those (experts/historians/analysts/former players) who have claimed that winning a Grand Slam is an absolute must in order to be considered GOAT. Good luck...

From McEnroe, to Collins, to Carillo and too many to list here, the Grand Slam has been recognized as the greatest achievement for decades. You seem to be incapable of understanding why this happened, or why the tennis PTB and sports media felt the need to create "personal slams." Pay attention, so the following does not need to be repeated: the very reasons "personal slams" came into existence, was to pump up the career of popular, but players incapable of rising to the GOAT level like Agassi, Serena, Federer and most recently, Maria Sharapova.

Why?

Logically, the "personal slam" exists as a consolation prize--its very name and function to be a historical second place to the recognized Grand Slam, otherwise, there would be no need for the PTB and sports media to even create & label this 2nd place distinction a "personal slam" or "insert-player-name slam."

This should be clear.

FYI, Laver never flip-flopped on this, he never committed himself before Fed won Wimbledon in July.

Search this the web, and there are article quotes where Laver has taken both postitions over recent years. .

Which means that he's either senile or an idiot for being completely oblivious of the magnitude of his own accomplishments. Makes sense huh?

Some players believe they are helping the sport by supporting its latest face. Unlike the NBA--which does quite well while acknowledging past players as the greatest, professional tennis has taken a recent turn to bury the past in order to keep all attention on the present, as though any recognition of the past hurts the ego and records of current players.

I've been involved with tennis in different capacities for 30+ years, which means that not only do I know more about tennis than you ever will, but I'm most likely older than you. That's quite the losing streak you're on kid...

I'm not buying it, Bobby. In fact, your statements strongly imply a very young member on some fanboy defensive soapbox. On that note, i'm calling you a BS-artist, as anyone with experience in profesissional tennis over 30 years would not refer to the decades-long, public recogniotion of the Grand Slam as the height of tennis achievement a lie.

Bobby-boy, you are on quicksand.

 

[TennisTalkGuru]

This "you must have a Grand Slam to be considered GOAT" is total bs. You made that up. You can't provide any evidence whatsoever to backup your silly claim.

In fact, the majority of tennis historians/experts/analysts/commentators/former players including Laver himself have stated that Federer is the GOAT. As it was explained to you numerous times, a Grand Slam (on two surfaces in Laver's case) shows domination over ONE season. That's it. It's a great accomplishment, but to claim that it somehow overrides all other accomplishments by a player during an entire career is bloody nonsense.

You are just one of those "I have to be right on the internet" types with an amazing ability to pursue an argument long after you have lost it...

lol, nice ownage. Gotta feel sorry for some posters on here.

 

[jonnythan]

Serena would blow any other female tennis player ever right off the court. End of thread.

 

[DRII]

Serena would blow any other female tennis player ever right off the court. End of thread.

Psyche!

Peak Venus' superior athleticism, explosiveness, and speed would overwhelm her...

 

[JustBob]

lol, nice ownage. Gotta feel sorry for some posters on here.

Yeah, Thundervolley is a hypocrite and a liar. Watch:

Me:

name those (experts/historians/analysts/former players) who have claimed that winning a Grand Slam is an absolute must in order to be considered GOAT. Good luck...

Him:

From McEnroe, to Collins, to Carillo and too many to list here, the Grand Slam has been recognized as the greatest achievement for decades.

That's not what I asked, he just avoided the question because he can't answer it. McEnroe, Collins, Carrillo and the "too many to list here" have never stated that winning a Grand Slam is an absolute must in order to be considered GOAT. If you mention that many consider Federer GOAT, including some of the above, (note that the well respected Steve Flink recently put Federer at #1), he'll argue that they've been flip-flopping on the issue. Really? If having a Grand Slam is absolutely necessary in order to be considered GOAT, how can there be such flip flopping on that issue? One day the Grand Slam is an absolute must for GOAT contenders and the next day it isn't? Bloody nonsense... [/quote]

And, the coup de grace...

Me:

Not only that, but some experts/historians who don't consider Federer GOAT have players such as Tilden or Kramer ahead of Laver. They must have missed Thundervolley's memo...

Him:

(Birds chirping...)

He'd make that stupid argument in the Former Pro Players forum, and even those who know far more about the history of tennis than he does, and who don't consider Federer GOAT would scorn and ridicule him. He's a fraud...

 

[Apun94]

The tennis media and her cult around boards like this one had no trouble trumpeting the "great return" of Sharapova at the end of the AO, all through the clay season and heading into Wimbledon. They all said she was the "one to beat" and all but promised she was going to win Wimbledon in the wake of her majors performances earlier in the year.



Clijsters was clearly no threat. On paper, the match-up seemed interesting, but it (as a challenging match) was not to be.



One by one:

Pierce--or the second phase Pierce--hit the gym to become a stronger "power player," but she was never seen as someone capable of blasting others off of the court with groundstrokes or even net points (no need to mention the serve).

Davenport was strong, but on her best day, she was not on Serena's level, and i've seen the likes of Henin, Mauresmo and Dementieva take her power with more stability than anything tried with Williams.

Henin...come on.

Clijsters herself has commented on the power of Serena in a way never said about anyone else. Is she delusional?

Capriati was indeed strong--especially on offense, but i've seen her panting and straining from battling Serena on more than one occasion. What does that suggest?

Off serve, prime Venus has more power than Serena...

Debatable. Watch them play each other and see who struggles more with the power of the other.

Seconded 10 times....

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The Grand Slam is celebrated because it is a neat and compact demonstration of dominance over the period of a calendar year. It's a nice achievement, it has a nice ring to it, but in real terms it's no greater an achievement than any number of arbitrary markers which demonstrate excellence at the highest level in this game. If we take as given the Grand Slam is an excellent achievement, its perceived significance over other equally difficult accomplishments is largely cosmetic, not categorical or logical. This is especially true when others have been extremely close to the Grand Slam and have achieved much more on top to boot.

+1

If anything, winning a GS means, that you have dominated the field for one year.

On the other hand, winning the total of Major titles means, that the said player has dominated the field for as long as his career lasted.

I do not see, how the former is a better measuring stick than the latter.

 

[Soianka]

Logically, the "personal slam" exists as a consolation prize--its very name and function to be a historical second place to the recognized Grand Slam, otherwise, there would be no need for the PTB and sports media to even create & label this 2nd place distinction a "personal slam" or "insert-player-name slam."

This should be clear.

This is a really strange argument.

So it's some amazing feat to win 4 slams in a row from Oz to the US Open

But it's somehow less of a feat to win 4 slams in a row from the US Open to the Wimbledon

Huh?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Yeah, Thundervolley is a hypocrite and a liar. That's not what I asked, he just avoided the question because he can't answer it. McEnroe, Collins, Carrillo and the "too many to list here" have never stated that winning a Grand Slam is an absolute must in order to be considered GOAT.

Thanks for revealing what a liar you are. Not only have I named individuals who have said this in the past (which you were hoping would not happen), but you conveniently DO NOT counter this with evidence that it was not stated (a complete history of alternate opinions)--a charge you cannot stand behind. If you were certain any of the individuals names never said it, certainly, it would have been easy to post such evidence here.

Oops.

Needless to say--but I will--you cannot do that. The reason you fail to back any of your statements up, is due to your habit of pulling ****-covered lies out of your ass and expecting it to stand as factual information, much like the lie of your vast, decades-long experience in professional tennis.

Try selling that to anyone born after 2001, as they would be the only age group green enough not to see through your gargantuan bullsh*t.

If having a Grand Slam is absolutely necessary in order to be considered GOAT, how can there be such flip flopping on that issue?

One day the Grand Slam is an absolute must for GOAT contenders and the next day it isn't? Bloody nonsense...

The nonsense is your inability to understand that Laver was first avoiding naming Federer, but he--like McEnroe--wants to promote the sport, only he believes celebrating a flavor of the moment is now the only way to do it, rather than the way other sports (the aforementioned NBA) pushes the sport forward, yet does not suffer from keeping the "greatest" crown on retired players (i.e. Jordan).

He'd make that stupid argument in the Former Pro Players forum, and even those who know far more about the history of tennis than he does, and who don't consider Federer GOAT would scorn and ridicule him. He's a fraud...

notice how you have no answer for:

You seem to be incapable of understanding why this happened, or why the tennis PTB and sports media felt the need to create "personal slams." Pay attention, so the following does not need to be repeated: the very reason "personal slams" came into existence, was to pump up the career of popular, but players incapable of rising to the GOAT level like Agassi, Serena, Federer and most recently, Maria Sharapova.

Why?

Logically, the "personal slam" exists as a consolation prize--its very name and function to be a historical second place to the recognized Grand Slam, otherwise, there would be no need for the PTB and sports media to even create & label this 2nd place distinction a "personal slam" or "insert-player-name slam."

To address this latter-day invention instantly acknowledges the recognized importance of the Grand Slam and why a consolation prize was required to bolster the careers of those who could win the Grand Slam. I anticipated you were too much of a coward to seriously address this, as it would flush your moronic fantasies down the toilet...where it belongs.

I'm sure you will return and avoid this last matter again, and waste time pretending you are "winning" arguments. Typical.

 

[Talker]

Serena has a way to go.
Graff went to 13 finals in a row and at one point won 8/9 in that stretch.
She won 9/13 in that stretch also.
There was 5 in a row also in there.

Her competition at the time were Martina, Evert and Seles. These are great players.

Then there's weeks at #1, tournaments won with that competition.

These were true competitors that played some great tennis for years, unlike today's group that drops out after a very short hot streak.

 

[Brian11785]

So basically you say that the Grand Slam is the achievement that distinguishes a player as the greatest of all time, citing that certain people have claimed this fact (though you've only listed names, no links/quotes, as far as I can tell.)

BUUUUUUTTTT......

When those same "experts" claim that Federer is the greatest player of all time, you choose to ignore them.

Intellectual inconsistency. You can't pick and choose when to believe the experts only when it reinforces your previously-held beliefs.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

. You can't pick and choose when to believe the experts only when it reinforces your previously-held beliefs.

You do realize that this works both ways: pro-Federer fanatics choose to ignore experts when they claim others have some "greatest" feat or ability Federer does not. For one example, this board plays host to children actually attempting to place Federer as one of great French Open champions(!) based on one title and several appearances in finals, when no expert is seriously places him anywhere near true FO legends such as Borg, Nadal, or even Kuerten or Courier. There's no comparison--Federer has no place in that consideration, so for this group of fanatacs to attempt to give Federer an undeserved crown on clay means they will ignore experts (and common sense) when it suits their pre-concieved notion.

Then, there's the Olympics: just yesterday, as Murray defeated Federer, suddenly, we witnessed several posts and threads questioning the value of the Olympics when this was not such rapid questioning before the match's results (more to the point, winning Olympic gold in singles was always viewed as a great achievement for a tennis player). Once again, Federer fanatics pick what is truth and what is not when their false god is threatened.

All so hypocritical.

 

[smoledman]

Nobody cares much about minor events. You dont hear anyone saying Federer isnt as good as Lendl or Connors since he hasnt won about 100 tournaments.

Serena if she reaches 20 majors will be considered best ever by almost everyone. Even if she reaches 18 many will think she is. Remember Graf gained 2-5 extra slams by the Seles stabbing, and Court gained 4-7 extra by the Aussie Open status at the time so the real benchmark is in the 18-20 range. Aside from that though Serena at her best beats everyone except on clay and she already has the greatest longevity ever.

Federer has 75 titles to Serena's 44. He's at least trying to be the best ever.

 

[Brian11785]

You do realize that this works both ways: pro-Federer fanatics choose to ignore experts when they claim others have some "greatest" feat or ability Federer does not. For one example, this board plays host to children actually attempting to place Federer as one of great French Open champions(!) based on one title and several appearances in finals, when no expert is seriously places him anywhere near true FO legends such as Borg, Nadal, or even Kuerten or Courier. There's no comparison--Federer has no place in that consideration, so for this group of fanatacs to attempt to give Federer an undeserved crown on clay means they will ignore experts (and common sense) when it suits their pre-concieved notion.

Then, there's the Olympics: just yesterday, as Murray defeated Federer, suddenly, we witnessed several posts and threads questioning the value of the Olympics when this was not such rapid questioning before the match's results (more to the point, winning Olympic gold in singles was always viewed as a great achievement for a tennis player). Once again, Federer fanatics pick what is truth and what is not when their false god is threatened.

All so hypocritical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So you are acknowledging that you are also "so hypocritical"?

Who are you arguing with? No one in this thread has suggested the things you mentioned above. I agree that Fed's one FO title (regardless of the number of finals) doesn't put him with Nadal and Borg on clay. Of course there is rampant intellectual dishonesty on this board; that doesn't make it right.

I am no huge Federer fan. You've created a false dichotomy here. It's like people debating politics in America assuming everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican. Not everyone is a blind partisan of Nadal, Federer, Graf, Seles, Navratilova or Serena. You've done nothing but shy away from the topic by propping up some other side of the debate that doesn't exist in the thread. You're arguing with someone you've made up.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Nobody cares much about minor events.

Agreed. Minor events are exactly that--minor. Such irrelevant data is commonly used by those wanting to pad stat sheets of favorite players (see: this forum) but most of it has no weight in serious considerations of a player's historical placement.

 

[smoledman]

Serena has such a physical advantage over all the other players(when healthy) that it's not fair. I mean have you ever seen muscles like that on a female tennis player? I've seen them on East German shot putters....

 

[JustBob]

So basically you say that the Grand Slam is the achievement that distinguishes a player as the greatest of all time, citing that certain people have claimed this fact (though you've only listed names, no links/quotes, as far as I can tell.)

BUUUUUUTTTT......

When those same "experts" claim that Federer is the greatest player of all time, you choose to ignore them.

Intellectual inconsistency. You can't pick and choose when to believe the experts only when it reinforces your previously-held beliefs.

He still did not answer the question I asked... I did not ask to name people who have claimed that the Grand Slam is the greatest achievement in tennis, I asked him to name experts/historians/etc... who have claimed that having won a Grand Slam is an absolute necessity in order to be considered GOAT. Most believe the former, but will acknowledge that it shows domination over a single year, that it's just one accomplishment amongst many, and it certainly does not somehow cancel all other accomplishments of a player over an entire career.

And I already stated that many tennis experts/historians do not consider Laver or Budge the GOAT. Surely if his claim was true, and that Grand Slam criteria was so self-evident and universally accepted, you'd see nobody except these two players topping lists of tennis greats. Oops, you don't...

And the fact that he asked me to prove that some people DID NOT say something (a something, i.e. "a Grand slam is the greatest achievement in tennis", which is irrelevant to the question asked) is hilarious. He made the claim, the burden of proof is on him to back it up. Next, he'll probably ask me to prove that God, unicorns, and aliens do not exist...

So yeah, he's not only intellectually dishonest, he's a hypocrite...

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Who are you arguing with? No one in this thread has suggested the things you mentioned above. I agree that Fed's one FO title (regardless of the number of finals) doesn't put him with Nadal and Borg on clay. Of course there is rampant intellectual dishonesty on this board; that doesn't make it right.

It was not an argument, but an example illustrating a true example of the very charge you made:

You can't pick and choose when to believe the experts only when it reinforces your previously-held beliefs, not an argument.

That was clear.

On the Grand Slam matter, unlike fickle fans of the moment, I lean toward proven longevity of historical acceptance, rather than flavor of the moment cheerleading, or misguided attempts to push what is current as the best. That is the consistent view, unlike random former players who perform latter day flip flopping.

I am no huge Federer fan. You've created a false dichotomy here. It's like people debating politics in America assuming everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican. Not everyone is a blind partisan of Nadal, Federer, Graf, Seles, Navratilova or Serena.

Really. Tell me, what is the dominant debate topic on this board, which has led to more fights, banned users and deleted threads than anything else?

Federer vs. Nadal. It is always Federer vs. Nadal. It is very much like American politics: two sides, and any "middle" is largely ignored in the struggle for control. That is as accurate a description of TW as you will ever find.