New perspective on Goat debate.

[BGTN]

A very interesting perspective on the GOAT debate.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/505856-fedal-wars-looking-at-who-is-goat-from-a-different-angle

Article Summary:

The writer is basically using the points to calculate the GOAT.

Grand Slams – 2,000 points

ATP World Tour Finals – 1,100 points (ATP Points)

ATP World Tour Masters – 1,000 points


ATP World Tour – 500 points

ATP World Tour – 250 points



Now we will take each players legend and add the total points up:

Roger Federer

16 Grand Slams * 2,000 = 32,000 points

Four ATP World Tour Finals * 1,100 = 4,400 points

17 ATP World Tour Masters * 1,000 = 17,000 points

Eight ATP World Tour * 500 = 4,000 points

19 ATP World Tour * 250 = 4,750 points

TOTAL POINTS = 62,150




Rafael Nadal

Nine Grand Slams * 2,000 = 18,000 points

Zero ATP World Tour Finals * 1,100 = 0 points

18 ATP World Tour Masters * 1,000 = 18,000 points

11 ATP World Tour * 500 = 5,500 points (Including Olympic gold)

Five ATP World Tour * 250 = 1,250 points

TOTAL POINTS = 42,750



I don't necessarily agree with this format but it does make you think.

 

[FTS]

It's a lot more logical than head to head.

 

[aphex]

Rubbish.

A slam should be much more than double the points of a Masters if one is to determine Goatness...

Under this format, Hewitt probably has fewer points than murray..

Do you think anybody is going to remember murray if he doesnt win a slam??

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

A very interesting perspective on the GOAT debate.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/505856-fedal-wars-looking-at-who-is-goat-from-a-different-angle

Article Summary:

The writer is basically using the points to calculate the GOAT.

Grand Slams – 2,000 points

ATP World Tour Finals – 1,100 points (ATP Points)
ATP World Tour Masters – 1,000 points


ATP World Tour – 500 points

ATP World Tour – 250 points

so it corresponds to the points actually awarded for the rankings... excepted that for the year-end masters they take the points for a winner which would have lost 2 RR matches (a case that never occured in the history of the male year-end masters). this is ridiculous.

Lendl

Zero ATP World Tour Masters * 1,000 = 0 points (There were no Masters Series in those times.)

this is even more ridiculous !

and why only take into account wins ?
a guy like lendl who played 19 slam finals (11 lost) and 9 year-end masters finals (4 lost) is going to be seriously cheated !

also, how do they decide which tournament was a 250/500/1000 "before" ? it's not mentionned... so not only it's far too simplistic but they don't even say how they proceed to compute their amount of points !

 

[kiki]

Rubbish.

A slam should be much more than double the points of a Masters if one is to determine Goatness...

Under this format, Hewitt probably has fewer points than murray..

Do you think anybody is going to remember murray if he doesnt win a slam??

true.He will be another Tim Henman

 

[The-Champ]

unfair to other former greats who did not have Master Series tournaments.

 

[aphex]

true.He will be another Tim Henman

who?
....

 

[yellowoctopus]

Agreed that it is an interesting view.

I have noticed that articles on bleacherreport.com are often written by authors that go out of their ways to write pieces that draw attention without the proper background research or supporting facts.

For example: There was a fairly-recent article written about a release of a baseball pitcher by a major league team. The article questioned the move; only to find that one of the comments by the audience pointed to another article on the web indicating that it was in the pitcher's contract to be released at the end of the year. This article has since been pulled [edit: found the article, comments were taken out, I think? http://bleacherreport.com/articles/498100-why-was-takashi-saito-released-by-the-atlanta-braves]

The idea behind a web site to promote 'open source journalism' is a pretty nifty idea, but the downside is perhaps the lower quality reportings/views that should caution folks about its content.

 

[Nadalfan89]

5 years older and only 20k points ahead?

Ouch.

 

[kamakaze]

unfair to other former greats who did not have Master Series tournaments.

This is why Master's are meaningless. But *******s can't seem to understand that.

 

[The-Champ]

5 years older and only 20k points ahead?

Ouch.

dude that's a lot. That's equivalent to 10 majors or 20MS :shock:

 

[meg0529]

This is why Master's are meaningless. But *******s can't seem to understand that.

Are they now? How many do you have? or are you only into winning majors? :roll:

 

[FTS]

slams should be worth 6000

 

[kamakaze]

Are they now? How many do you have? or are you only into winning majors? :roll:

Well Nadal has what 18 Master's? Lendl has 0? 18/0=infinity. Therefore Nadal is infinitely better than Lendl. ********* stupidity uncovered once again.

 

[Nadalfan89]

dude that's a lot. That's equivalent to 10 majors or 20MS :shock:

You don't think Nadal will win more than 5 majors and 10 masters in the next 5 years?

 

[ashitaka2010]

using the points to calculate the GOAT

This debate is getting better and better :neutral:

 

[The-Champ]

You don't think Nadal will win more than 5 majors and 10 masters in the next 5 years?

That's a possibility. I hope he does but a of things can happen. As we've seen last year, Nadal failed to defend his FO, W titles for whatever reason.

 

[TMF]

You don't think Nadal will win more than 5 majors and 10 masters in the next 5 years?

Fed and Rafa turned pro in 1998 and 2001 respectively. (dry)

 

[cyrilcanada]

You don't think Nadal will win more than 5 majors and 10 masters in the next 5 years?

5 years of human years ? Nadal will be 50 by then ...

 

[HunterST]

Lol this is the poster that claimed/people thought was Brad Gilbert and now he's banned.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Do you think anybody is going to remember murray if he doesnt win a slam??

he wasn't so bad in lost in translation...

 

[meg0529]

Well Nadal has what 18 Master's? Lendl has 0? 18/0=infinity. Therefore Nadal is infinitely better than Lendl. ********* stupidity uncovered once again.

LMAO. No kiddo, actually division by 0 is undefined. You fail. Now stop insulting other people's intelligence and go finish your math hw.

 

[kiki]

who?
....

My name is Henman, Tim Henman

 

[sdont]

LMAO. No kiddo, actually division by 0 is undefined. You fail. Now stop insulting other people's intelligence and go finish your math hw.

Well, technically, one could assume the result is +infinity since the number of titles is a positive number. What do you think?

 

[aphex]

Well, technically, one could assume the result is +infinity since the number of titles is a positive number. What do you think?

 

[aphex]

Well, technically, one could assume the result is +infinity since the number of titles is a positive number. What do you think?

 

[luckyboy1300]

what that article certainly forgets is that having a positive h2h is worth 1,000,000,000,000 points

 

[jackson vile]

A very interesting perspective on the GOAT debate.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/505856-fedal-wars-looking-at-who-is-goat-from-a-different-angle

Article Summary:

The writer is basically using the points to calculate the GOAT.

Grand Slams – 2,000 points

ATP World Tour Finals – 1,100 points (ATP Points)

ATP World Tour Masters – 1,000 points


ATP World Tour – 500 points

ATP World Tour – 250 points



Now we will take each players legend and add the total points up:

Roger Federer

16 Grand Slams * 2,000 = 32,000 points

Four ATP World Tour Finals * 1,100 = 4,400 points

17 ATP World Tour Masters * 1,000 = 17,000 points

Eight ATP World Tour * 500 = 4,000 points

19 ATP World Tour * 250 = 4,750 points

TOTAL POINTS = 62,150




Rafael Nadal

Nine Grand Slams * 2,000 = 18,000 points

Zero ATP World Tour Finals * 1,100 = 0 points

18 ATP World Tour Masters * 1,000 = 18,000 points

11 ATP World Tour * 500 = 5,500 points (Including Olympic gold)

Five ATP World Tour * 250 = 1,250 points

TOTAL POINTS = 42,750



I don't necessarily agree with this format but it does make you think.

What about all the other legends?

 

[aphex]

he wasn't so bad in lost in translation...

lol...........

 

[Talker]

How about slam finals, that should be worth a little more than a masters.

 

[P_Agony]

Rubbish.

A slam should be much more than double the points of a Masters if one is to determine Goatness...

Under this format, Hewitt probably has fewer points than murray..

Do you think anybody is going to remember murray if he doesnt win a slam??

I agree. You're spot on. However, like someone said, its better than comparing the H2H like the *******s do.

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

5 years older and only 20k points ahead?

Ouch.

nadal wont last to make up even close to 20K in points ouch...

 

[meg0529]

he wasn't so bad in lost in translation...

lol nice!

Well, technically, one could assume the result is +infinity since the number of titles is a positive number. What do you think?

Aphex said it rather well, but like I told whatshisface, unless you are taking one sided limits, it is undefined.

 

[kamakaze]

LMAO. No kiddo, actually division by 0 is undefined. You fail. Now stop insulting other people's intelligence and go finish your math hw.

Wow *********s are mathematically challenged. 18/0 = infinity. Only 0/0 is undefined.

 

[FTS]

infinite zeros will never get you anywhere...

 

[meg0529]

Wow *********s are mathematically challenged. 18/0 = infinity. Only 0/0 is undefined.

No, 18/0 is undefined. Unless, you wanna take limits? Then too, only one sided limits are defined. So unless you write it in proper notation, 18/0 is undefined. But better question is, why would you be dividing 18 by zero in the first place? You are taking the ratio of their wins? How does that make sense? Go home.

 

[TACOSRULE]

 

[kamakaze]

0 = 1 / infinity

if y = 1 / 0
then y = 1 / (1 / infinity))

Therefore y = infinity.

 

[tacou]

it's as fine a way as any to "determine" GOAT, although no one will ever be satisfied. there are a lot of holes. a lot.

 

[FTS]

0 = 1 / infinity

if y = 1 / 0
then y = 1 / (1 / infinity))

Therefore y = infinity.

So zero multiplied by infinity equals one?

 

[meg0529]

0 = 1 / infinity

if y = 1 / 0
then y = 1 / (1 / infinity))

Therefore y = infinity.

Limit of 1/x as x goes to infinity is 0. as you divide one by a larger and larger number it goes to 0, but never reaches 0. In any case, my issue isn't with your math. You go high enough in math, I'm sure you can find a way to break any rule. After a point it's all malarkey. But if you are going to be obnoxious and insult other people's intelligence, check yourself first. Just saying.

 

[piece]

0 = 1 / infinity

if y = 1 / 0
then y = 1 / (1 / infinity))

Therefore y = infinity.

Problem: 1/infinity is also undefined. Moreover, assuming that there is some y such that y=1/0 is question begging - the very point at issue is whether or not there exists any such y, so you can't just assume that there is.

 

[meg0529]

Problem: 1/infinity is also undefined. Moreover, assuming that there is some y such that y=1/0 is question begging - the very point at issue is whether or not there exists any such y, so you can't just assume that there is.

Math is a lot more fun than the goat debate, no?

 

[piece]

Math is a lot more fun than the goat debate, no?

Well at least in a maths debate you can be right

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

0 = 1 / infinity

if y = 1 / 0
then y = 1 / (1 / infinity))

Therefore y = infinity.

now you have broken the B.E.D.M.A.S rule (parentheses before division)

if y = 1/(1/∞)

then 1/y =(1/∞)/1 not 1/y = 1/∞ as you are implying.

 

[Sentinel]

This whole debate is quite useless when one of the persons (Rafa) is 24 only and is coming into his prime.

On paper, he's short on Roger, but Roger's claim to GOAT is also too suspect / weak now.

If Rafa equals Roger's slam count, he clearly will be greater than Roger. If not, the matter can be flogged to death with no agreeable answer.

At this moment, no GOAT. I also don't see Roger as ever being a clear GOAT especially since rafa's slam count is going up fast. Roger, maybe 1-2 more at best.

 

[ledwix]

This whole debate is quite useless when one of the persons (Rafa) is 24 only and is coming into his prime.

On paper, he's short on Roger, but Roger's claim to GOAT is also too suspect / weak now.

If Rafa equals Roger's slam count, he clearly will be greater than Roger. If not, the matter can be flogged to death with no agreeable answer.

At this moment, no GOAT.

If there is not a GOAT now, then there is never ever a GOAT, because there's always the possibility of someone else going insane in some unforeseen decade like never before.

 

[EnigmaticPragmatic]

 

[piece]

If there is not a GOAT now, then there is never ever a GOAT, because there's always the possibility of someone else going insane in some unforeseen decade like never before.

Yes, I think people take the "all time" in GOAT a little too literally. It's obviously intended to mean "all time that has passed", in which case there's no problem in calling Roger the GOAT and admitting that Nadal may end up being the GOAT. Ledwix is right to say that if you think the possibility of player X overtaking player Y prevents player Y from ever being GOAT then it's impossible for there to ever be a GOAT because there always at least the possibility of any player, however accomplished, being exceeded.

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

Goat/ 0 = ∞