New perspective on Goat debate.

[Sentinel]

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.

i basically am talking of just Roger and Rafa.
Roger is not a convincing case for Goat with Rafa closing in.
Most likely Rafa will end up being the clear GOAT in a few years

(... of course unless someone comes around ...)

 

[TACOSRULE]

i basically am talking of just Roger and Rafa.
Roger is not a convincing case for Goat with Rafa closing in.
Most likely Rafa will end up being the clear GOAT in a few years

(... of course unless someone comes around ...)

do not speak too soon :-|

 

[ruerooo]

... the matter can be flogged to death with no agreeable answer.

Oh, you mean like it is on a near-daily basis now?
:-? :lol:

 

[Sentinel]

Oh, you mean like it is on a near-daily basis now?
:-? :lol:

I ignore the GOAT threads, so i would not know.

But Rafa has all the capabilities to be the GOAT. (If you no wot i mean).

 

[ledwix]

i basically am talking of just Roger and Rafa.
Roger is not a convincing case for Goat with Rafa closing in.
Most likely Rafa will end up being the clear GOAT in a few years

(... of course unless someone comes around ...)

The greatest player to date is Roger Federer. The future is as yet unwritten, 'cause if Roger is not a convincing case due to someone else even possibly getting close to his slam count etc. in the next 5 years, then why not extend that the possibility of anyone in the next million years doing so? etc.

 

[Sentinel]

The greatest player to date is Roger Federer. The future is as yet unwritten, 'cause if Roger is not a convincing case due to someone else even possibly getting close to his slam count etc. in the next 5 years, then why not extend that the possibility of anyone in the next million years doing so? etc.

No no, it is not about getting close to slam count. Even if Rafa retires today, or with 15 slams... it's the way he has routed Roger .. that makes Roger's GOAT case questionable and debatable.

Anyway, as someone who has followed some sports for decades, i prefer to enjoy those who come, rather than start comparing. I don't get into counting Olympic medals, World records and the like.

 

[sdont]

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

That's why I'm talking about non-negative numbers. It is one-sided by definition in the context of number of titles.

But anyway it's nitpicking and you know it well.

 

[sdont]

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.

Nope. On the extended real number line, 1/infinity equals 0.

 

[sdont]

I can divide by zero any time I want.

 

[Andres]

infinity/andres = undefined

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Gorecki x *********s\*******s = General mayhem

 

[niff]

I can divide by zero any time I want.

This terrifies me.

 

[meg0529]

This terrifies me.

Lol!



10 zeros

 

[meg0529]

delete post

 

[aphex]

I can divide by zero any time I want.

Not unless you're>>>>>>>

 

[kamakaze]

*******s = infinity
*********s = 0

 

[meg0529]

*******s = infinity
*********s = 0

If you are looking at level of ignorance, then yes, *******s 0 and *******s infinitely ignorant. Although, we do have a few nuts on our side, so you are precenting the *******s too generously. I would say between 5-10 for *******s.

 

[cknobman]

Every poster on this forum needs to take the following text and copy it into their own post which will unify the forum in complete agreement and happiness.

My Player > Your Player.

 

[meg0529]

Every poster on this forum needs to take the following text and copy it into their own post which will unify the forum in complete agreement and happiness.

My Player > Your Player.

I like =D Need a new siggy anyway!

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

 

[Bobby Jr]

Rubbish.

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

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

I agree completely. Since slams are the historic benchmark of achievement and only serious fanatics know about Masters series wins I'd probably put a slam win as equivalent to 5 or more Masters series wins.

Even then, since the masters haven't existed for all time (open era at least) it's not a fair comparison for the Lendls, Borgs etc..

Olympics, since they are a rare occurrence I'd be inclined to rate as equivalent to a slam.

Also - if you're getting into calculations then exta % should be added for defending a slam (maybe an extra 10% on defended slam) and winning 2 in a year (extra 10% on year's slam total), 3 in a year (extra 15%), or 4 in a year (extra 50%) - type thing...

Pretty quickly you end back up with an insanely complex and hotly debated calculation.... which would eventually end with us back to slam wins = definitive GOAT calculator for simplicity.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

i basically am talking of just Roger and Rafa.
Roger is not a convincing case for Goat with Rafa closing in.
Most likely Rafa will end up being the clear GOAT in a few years

(... of course unless someone comes around ...)

So Federer is the goat unless Nadal does as you think he likely will...

 

[Limpinhitter]

What if the ATP didn't exist during a GOAT'S prime?

 

[timnz]

ATP Finals much more important than Masters events

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.

I think the ATP World Tour Finals should be around 1500 points. It is a significantly more important event than 'Masters' 1000 events. I am not sure how many points it actually has, but it should have a point standing around 1500 points I believe. (That would add 1600 points to Federer's total).

 

[timnz]

The whole of tennis history is important

What if the ATP didn't exist during a GOAT'S prime?

Agreed. Laver won about 13 equivalent Masters 1000 events after the age of 30 alone. His 19 'Majors' + and many many events would put him ahead considerably. How do you rate in points the 1970 and 1971 Tennis Champions Classic wins - where Laver only lost 1 match in 26 - 5 set matches. In the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic Laver faced players like Rosewall and Newcombe in the first 2 rounds. No-one has had to play a tournament with that sort of depth before. 13 rounds each being 5 sets with the greatest players in the world. Many of whom had or would gain World Number 1 amateur or professional rankings. A Masters 1000 pails in comparison.

 

[sdont]

Not unless you're>>>>>>>

Who knows? I sometimes divide by zero several times a day

 

[sdont]

This terrifies me.

No need to be afraid. It's all under control. :twisted: