Peak/longevity GOAT theory

[Deleted member 757377]

I'm thinking of a theory about GOATs. I distinguish between peak of play, which is shown in a limited period (years usually) and the abilty to compete at very high levels (slam winning or multiple finals) for a long time.

An Open Era ranking for me could be this one:

Peak:

1) Borg
2) Djokovic
3) Nadal
4) Federer
5) Sampras
6) McEnroe
7) Connors
8) Lendl
9) Agassi
10) Becker

Longevity:

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Connors
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
6) Djokovic
7) Lendl
8) Borg
9) Becker
10) McEnroe

Overall:

1) Federer and Nadal
3) Djokovic
4) Borg and Sampras
6) Connors
7) Agassi
8) Lendl
9) McEnroe
10) Becker

 

[kOaMaster]

how...why...srly?

 

[Zhilady]

Pretty dumb thread.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

It's just a game, relax.

 

[nikdom]

Any numbers to support how you arrived at your ranking based on the criteria you set out?

 

[van_Loederen]

by "peak of play" you mean the accumulation of big results within a short time span ...since you are hardly able to judge level of play.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Any numbers to support how you arrived at your ranking based on the criteria you set out?

As peak of play I considered domination and level of the opponents. As longevity the ability to win big tournaments and be top ranked for many years.

 

[nikdom]

As peak of play I considered domination and level of the opponents. As longevity the ability to win big tournaments and be top ranked for many years.

Sure you considered them. But where are they in your post?

Without any objective data to go with your theory, hard to discuss anyhting meaningfully no?

You might have as well pulled this list out of your ass while pretending it has any objective basis without them.

 

[van_Loederen]

As peak of play I considered domination and level of the opponents. As longevity the ability to win big tournaments and be top ranked for many years.

by "level of the opponents" you mean their results. so f.i. Nadal is per se a strong opponent while Roddick is per se a weak opponent.

and peaking in an era with such weak opponents naturally reduces your "peak of play".

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I would place Lendl at least on par with Agassi in the overall ranking. Probably because the gap between them in peak of play deserves more than 1 position...

 

[Backspin1780]

It's just a game, relax.

Lol at fed and nadal having the same average level when statistically nadal losing to a R4 mug or not playing a tournament is more likely than him reaching a final. And djokovic peak level isnt very high if he cant beat a non peak old federer on his worst slam and worst surface and struggles to beat him even at 35 and still loses to him at 35

 

[La Vigésima]

See sig for OP's hilarious positions.

 

[nikdom]

 

[Backspin1780]

As peak of play I considered domination and level of the opponents. As longevity the ability to win big tournaments and be top ranked for many years.

Lmao ability to be top ranked for long time. Ermmm gee i wonder if an organisation would mathmateically rank players based on results and then post a table of all time no1 ranked weeks online. No i dont need maths and stats ill just have a stab at who has the most longevity.

And lol nadals average level of play sucks compared to federers. Djokovics is poor compared to feds too. You do realise his current level of play is part of his average?

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Fedr 4th in peak level and djoker 2nd!!!???
Huh...
Fedr dominated the strong field from 2004-07 than djoker's 2015-16... (Exception is 2011 but even in 2011, djoker couldn't annihilate field)

 

[zagor]

Open Era and not putting Laver in the top 10 peak level of play list, tsk tsk.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I won't answer anymore about weak/strong era.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Open Era and not putting Laver in the top 10 peak level of play list, tsk tsk.

I considered only full Open Era players.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Lol at fed and nadal having the same average level when statistically nadal losing to a R4 mug or not playing a tournament is more likely than him reaching a final. And djokovic peak level isnt very high if he cant beat a non peak old federer on his worst slam and worst surface and struggles to beat him even at 35 and still loses to him at 35

With ''average'' I meant overall ranking. The average between the two rankings.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Sure you considered them. But where are they in your post?

Without any objective data to go with your theory, hard to discuss anyhting meaningfully no?

You might have as well pulled this list out of your ass while pretending it has any objective basis without them.

To be fair, @Lew’s approach of pulling lists out of his ass is lack of pretense.

Pretense is pulling selective numbers from one’s ass and calling it objective, the usual format around here.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

I'm thinking of a theory about GOATs. I distinguish between peak of play, which is shown in a limited period (years usually) and the abilty to compete at very high levels (slam winning or multiple finals) for a long time.

An Open Era ranking for me could be this one:

Peak:

1) Borg
2) Djokovic
3) Nadal
4) Federer
5) Sampras
6) McEnroe
7) Connors
8) Lendl
9) Agassi
10) Becker

Longevity:

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Connors
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
6) Djokovic
7) Lendl
8) Borg
9) Becker
10) McEnroe

Overall:

1) Federer and Nadal
3) Djokovic
4) Borg and Sampras
6) Connors
7) Agassi
8) Lendl
9) McEnroe
10) Becker

You go @Lew.

I’ll never forget your first thread - why grass is the least relevant surface - that got reported by some very irate people here.

Peak and longevity huh?

Let’s see what kind of hornet’s nest you stir up this time.

By the by, I agree with both:

At this point in time grass is the least relevant surface. Hard and clay in whatever order, and a very distant third is grass. As much as I love Wimbledon and think it’s the finest tournament, and prettiest on the eyes, grass is from a bygone era.

Yes, peak Borg to me is as good as peak Federer. AS GOOD, not better. Borg peaked on clay and grass, arguably the toughest ask given the scheduling, while Federer peaked on grass and hard courts.

Peak Djokovic? That could be argued but everything would depend on your window for peaking. A year? 3 years? 5 years? For me i think peaking is a 3-5 year period.

 

[Username_]

OP placing Nadel at number 2 for longevity when he routinely gets injured and skips tournaments all career already makes the list look ridiculous

 

[falstaff78]

I am thinking of a theory about great us presidents. A ranking for me could be this one:

1. Trump.
2+ everyone else.

Pretty compelling no?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Didn’t you tell me that you logged off and would never post again? Lmao.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

OP placing Nadel at number 2 for longevity when he routinely gets injured and skips tournaments all career already makes the list look ridiculous

11 years winning slams.
8 years in top-2.
9 years reaching 2 slam finals.

 

[Pagoo]

Didn’t you tell me that you logged off and would never post again? Lmao.

Unfortunately, haters and trolls never leave voluntarily. They usually have to be bundled out scratching and screaming.

 

[ANDYbhGENIUS]

OP placing Nadel at number 2 for longevity when he routinely gets injured and skips tournaments all career already makes the list look ridiculous

NADEL huh? Good grief, ridiculing a polite forum member while misspelling and not understanding what longevity in this context means, just so you can feel superior gratifying your urge to ridicule and insult? Shame on you, and this goes for most of the gang-members around here.

I agree this is another worthless GOAT thread, but in itself that ought to ensure a certain popularity around here.

Go Lew! - if you are being stabbed at, stab back, or report these juvenile, wait, infantile forum delinquents.

 

[ANDYbhGENIUS]

11 years winning slams.
8 years in top-2.
9 years reaching 2 slam finals.

If you want to interpret longevity correctly, you'd have to look at the "span", the period over which Nadal has won slams (and masters 1000s), which is <13> years, and counting, now.

 

[KINGROGER]

No way is Djokovic over Federer for peak level. Past prime Fed outplayed peak Djokovic at 2011 RG/USO and 2012 Wimbledon and managed to win 2 of them having 2 MP in the other.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

@King Roger

2011-12: Djokovic 4 slam titles, Federer 1.

H2h between the big3: Djokovic 14-6, Federer 5-11.

 

[Username_]

NADEL huh? Good grief, ridiculing a polite forum member while misspelling and not understanding what longevity in this context means, just so you can feel superior gratifying your urge to ridicule and insult? Shame on you, and this goes for most of the gang-members around here.

I agree this is another worthless GOAT thread, but in itself that ought to ensure a certain popularity around here.

Go Lew! - if you are being stabbed at, stab back, or report these juvenile, wait, infantile forum delinquents.

you mad brother? referred to the OP and all of the sudden u decide to stick your plonker into my behind as well as "most of the gang-members around here" for the OP simply for expressing our opinions

@Lew has been polite. if anything its you that's being rude and trying to play tough guy according to your post here

 

[Deleted member 757377]

you mad brother? referred to the OP and all of the sudden u decide to stick your plonker into my behind as well as "most of the gang-members around here" for the OP simply for expressing our opinions

@Lew has been polite. if anything its you that's being rude and trying to play tough guy according to your post here

They act like spoiled kids. Thanks to the overrating operation made by Rolex, Credit Suisse, Mercedes, Lindt, Nike, Wilson, Jura, Moet & Chandon, Barilla, Sunrise, NetJets.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

I could give some extra points to Borg and Federer as nobody stands above them in the rankings. So the overall ranking could be

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Borg and Djokovic
5) Sampras

 

[thrust]

Open Era and not putting Laver in the top 10 peak level of play list, tsk tsk.

True. Also, Rosewall was 33 when the open era began. He won the FO at 33, USO at 35 and the AO at 36 and 37. He also reached 4 other slam finals, the last two at 39. He also won 2 WCT championships at 37 and 32 tournaments total on clay, grass, hard and carpet. Laver's peak was 69 when the won the Grand Slam at 30-31, he also won many tournaments in 70-71. Fact IS the Open Era began in 1968, NOT 2000.

 

[thrust]

I considered only full Open Era players.

I suppose that is because Laver then would be either #1 or 2 and Rosewall 2 or 3. According to the Elo rankings Rosewal, after turning 33 is ranked 17 just for his open era play, Laver is either 9 or 10.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

True. Also, Rosewall was 33 when the open era began. He won the FO at 33, USO at 35 and the AO at 36 and 37. He also reached 4 other slam finals, the last two at 39. He also won 2 WCT championships at 37 and 32 tournaments total on clay, grass, hard and carpet. Laver's peak was 69 when the won the Grand Slam at 30-31, he also won many tournaments in 70-71. Fact IS the Open Era began in 1968, NOT 2000.

As I said, I considered full Open Era players only.

EDIT: you read it.

 

[Pheasant]

Statistically, I cannot see how anybody can top Federer for peak or longevity. He holds all of the important records for both. And it isn’t even close. Fed buries everybody in peak and longevity. saying otherwise requires one to completely toss stats out the window. And once stats are dismissed, any outrageous answer is fair game.

Case for peak:
237 consecutive weeks at #1. This beats the next best guy by nearly 50%. This feat alone is probably enough to cement his case for having the best peak.

10 consecutive slam finals and 18/19. This feat is absurd. He holds the top 2 records for the most consecutive slam finals. The next best is 6, which isn’t close to Fed’s top 2 marks.

23 consecutive slam semis. This buries the next best run by more than 50%.

26 consecutive wins vs top 10. This is another absurd record. A 26 match winning streak makes headlines; as it should. 26 straight against the top 10 seems impossible.

11 slam titles in 16 events. “You can’t be serious.” That’s Borg’s entire career in 4 years. That’s 1 shy of Djoker’s entire career in 4 years.

Case for longevity:
20 slam titles.
308 weeks at #1
214 wins vs top 10
332 slam match wins. If #2 Djoker won the next 13 consecutive slam events(91-0), he would still be 1 shy of Fed’s Record.

Somebody could argue that Connors has a case with the most career match wins and the fact that he won the most tournaments. And that’s somewhat legit all by itself. But Fed’s 20-8 edge in slams puts that to bed. Also, Fed has played far more highly ranked opponents, which is proven by his 214-121 edge in wins vs the top 10.

Federer is easily #1 in both categories. It isn’t even close. It gets close when looking for the 2 guy. Borg’s 6 FO title and 5 Wimbledon’s before turning 26 is unreal. He has a strong case for #2 peak. Djoker’s 14 consecutive slam semis and 28 straight slam quarters buries everybody else whose first name doesn’t rhyme with dodger. His case for the #2 peak is strong. Djokovic’s case for having the 2nd best career is strong too. Granted, Nadal has the all important 16-12 edge in slam titles. But a Djokovic buries Nadal in WTF(5-0), weeks at #1, and career wins vs the top 10. And then there’s Sampras to completely muddy the waters too. He has 14 slam titles, several WTF finals, and 286 weeks at #1. He beats Nadal in all of the importantly categories except slam titles. He matches or beats Djoker in all of the important categories. But it gets muddy because he played far fewer opponents in the top 10. And that means a lot. His level of competition gives Nadal and Djoker a fighting chance here.

Roger is head and shoulders above everybody for #1 in both peak and longevity. The race for #2 is quite interesting.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

@King Roger

2011-12: Djokovic 4 slam titles, Federer 1.

H2h between the big3: Djokovic 14-6, Federer 5-11.

Lmao 2011-12 isn’t peak Federer

 

[kOaMaster]

I could give some extra points...

what points?!? I don't see any points. it's just a list of randomly adjusted names based on some subjective opinions of yours.

 

[Sasuke]

Didn’t you tell me that you logged off and would never post again? Lmao.

Happened to read that too. Too bad the mod deleted the poast?

 

[Deleted member 742196]

They act like spoiled kids. Thanks to the overrating operation made by Rolex, Credit Suisse, Mercedes, Lindt, Nike, Wilson, Jura, Moet & Chandon, Barilla, Sunrise, NetJets.

They act like rioting inmates from a decade of imprisonment at Guantamo Bay.

I should know, that’s what being tortured by Nadal and Djokovic felt like 2008~2017.

 

[Deleted member 756486]

Happened to read that too. Too bad the mod deleted the poast?

Yeah the post is gone now.

Too bad he can’t delete our memories...

 

[RF-18]

Highest peak: Djokovic

Longevity: Federer/Connors

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Happened to read that too. Too bad the mod deleted the poast?

Yeah the post is gone now.

Too bad he can’t delete our memories...

@Lew’s original post being deleted is one of the recent tragedies of this forum. It brilliantly elicited the insecurity and haughtiness of many FedFans on this forum.

More damaging, it demonstrated the impartiality that comes from the top that paves the way for such behaviour.

Who would’ve reported it to the mods?

Would’ve only come from the FedCult.

 

[Sasuke]

@Lew’s original post being deleted is one of the recent tragedies of this forum. It brilliantly elicited the insecurity and haughtiness of many FedFans on this forum.

More damaging, it demonstrated the impartiality that comes from the top that paves the way for such behaviour.

Who would’ve reported it to the mods?

Would’ve only come from the FedCult.

?

Sorry. But you totally miss what me and @paranoidandroid was refering to. The posts that got deleted were from our RF-18's thread where he was using ******, stupid etc words. Hence, got deleted by the mods for the reason as 'fighting' . I think it's reasonable for the mods to delete cat fights posts among members. What it got to do with 'fedcult'?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Lmao 2011-12 isn’t peak Federer

He talked about 2011-12.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

@Pheasant

Excluding Federer, the players born from 1978 to 1984 reached only 24 slam finals.

Federer didn't peak against champions.

 

[HazBeen18]

God this video. Made me spit out my coffee and been laughing at it all morning....

 

[Steve0904]

Didn’t you tell me that you logged off and would never post again? Lmao.

I seem to remember that too or something like it. He threw a hissy fit because they deleted one of his threads and said he was done on the forum.