Peak/Prime is just suggestion, not a binding clause

[Winner Sinner]

What about if they declare they will win everything prior to the start of the year and that they will play only the one year, and then do so as you note? And when asked why only the one year, they say tennis bores them because they're so great at it, but that they conceeded one year as proof.

It's the same thing.
In the GOAT debate one must enter through the facts and not through the potential that only generates assumptions as an end in themselves.

You can also be the greatest talent in history, but if you don't prove it with facts in the long term, that remains just a label as an end in itself.

In soccer, Maradona probably reached the highest levels ever reached by a footballer in the history of football at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.
In general, his first rightfully ranks among the best firsts in the history of soccer, but his career does not because, unlike that of Messi, it lasted at very high levels for a much shorter time window.

Shaq in basketball, if he had taken care of his body during the off-season as in the 1999 off-season which coincided with the arrival of Phil Jackson.
How many seasons like 1999-2000 could he have seen from him?

With ifs and buts you don't make history, to make history you need facts.

 

[nolefam_2024]

It's the same thing.
In the GOAT debate one must enter through the facts and not through the potential that only generates assumptions as an end in themselves.

You can also be the greatest talent in history, but if you don't prove it with facts in the long term, that remains just a label as an end in itself.

In soccer, Maradona probably reached the highest levels ever reached by a footballer in the history of football at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.
In general, his prime rightfully ranks among the best prime in the history of soccer, but his career does not because, unlike that of Messi, it lasted at very high levels for a much shorter time window.

Shaq in basketball, if he had taken care of his body during the off-season as in the 1999 off-season which coincided with the arrival of Phil Jackson.
How many seasons like 1999-2000 could he have seen from him?

With ifs and buts you don't make history, to make history you need facts.

You are right. Djokovic was already the Goat before 2021 Wimbledon despite 19<20 but until he proved it, John McEnroe did not give him the nod as it could be disputed then.

Even Federer did not get the status as the best until he won rg and reached 14.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

It's the same thing.
In the GOAT debate one must enter through the facts and not through the potential that only generates assumptions as an end in themselves.

You can also be the greatest talent in history, but if you don't prove it with facts in the long term, that remains just a label as an end in itself.

In soccer, Maradona probably reached the highest levels ever reached by a footballer in the history of football at the 1986 World Cup in Mexico.
In general, his first rightfully ranks among the best firsts in the history of soccer, but his career does not because, unlike that of Messi, it lasted at very high levels for a much shorter time window.

Shaq in basketball, if he had taken care of his body during the off-season as in the 1999 off-season which coincided with the arrival of Phil Jackson.
How many seasons like 1999-2000 could he have seen from him?

With ifs and buts you don't make history, to make history you need facts.

Great post but different eras require different contexts. 80s serie a was the most defensive league in history and so was 80s football , also defenders could get away with flying kick , he was the most tackled player in history by miles, tough to have a long Career in such contexts, add modern medicine , fine quality of pitches to that.

 

[fedfan24]

this is just a fancy way of trying to say the big 3 were in their prime still in mid 30s.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

this is just a fancy way of trying to say the big 3 were in their prime still in mid 30s.

Djokovic was close to his prime in 30s though

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic was close to his prime in 30s though

You are very right.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

You are very right.

Shotmaking wise even Nadal was , albeit his movement and speed took a nosedive

 

[nolefam_2024]

Shotmaking wise even Nadal was , albeit his movement and speed took a nosedive

true but Nadal was in limbo during toni years even his own fans would agree. As his movement was getting worse , he was using other tricks from hat under Carlos Moya coaching. Eg. Roland Garros 2019 final when thiem went toe to toe for 2 sets, Nadal flipped the script and attacked the net a lot and completely bamboozled Thiem.

I think movement and speed is great but without experience it is wasted. Eg Alcaraz has insane foot speed but he doesn't scare me when Djokovic went vs him in rg 23 because he doesn't know how to use it.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

true but Nadal was in limbo during toni years even his own fans would agree. As his movement was getting worse , he was using other tricks from hat under Carlos Moya coaching. Eg. Roland Garros 2019 final when thiem went toe to toe for 2 sets, Nadal flipped the script and attacked the net a lot and completely bamboozled Thiem.

I think movement and speed is great but without experience it is wasted. Eg Alcaraz has insane foot speed but he doesn't scare me when Djokovic went vs him in rg 23 because he doesn't know how to use it.

Movement and speed is an art and only Djokodal knew how to expose their opppinet with it , they used their movement and speed to defend like a wall and then launch attack by changing direction to rob off their opponent off time. Djokovic made Sinner look slow in their Wimbledon match up by constantly changing direction while being attacked and did same to Carlos many times.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Movement and speed is an art and only Djokodal knew how to expose their opppinet with it , they used their movement and speed to defend like a wall and then launch attack by changing direction to rob off their opponent off time. Djokovic made Sinner looks slow in their Wimbledon match up by constantly changing direction while being attacked and did same to Carlos many times.

True.

 

[inflation_era]

Djokovic was peak at AO2017. But Istomin's peak just happened to be peakier that day.

 

[fedfan24]

Djokovic was close to his prime in 30s though

Some isolated tournaments perhaps but not consistently. The subpar competition helped mask his decline.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Discussions about whether a player is "past their prime" or "out of their peak" often become contentious because they oversimplify complex performance dynamics. Here's a breakdown of how to approach these debates more constructively:

Understanding Peak vs. Prime​

1. Prime refers to a sustained period when an athlete consistently performs at their best level. For tennis players, this is often between ages 21-29, with the absolute peak typically around 24-28 years old, as shown by performance metrics like Grand Slam wins and ranking points.
2. Peak refers to moments or seasons of exceptional performance, which can occur both inside and outside the "prime" years. Players can achieve peak-level tennis even after their prime by adapting their playstyle, equipment, or fitness regimen.

Debunking Misconceptions​

• Binary Thinking: Arguments that dismiss a player's capabilities entirely because they are no longer in their prime ignore the nuances of athletic performance. For example, players like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic have demonstrated peak-level performances well into their 30s.
• Opponent Context: A player's performance should also be evaluated based on the quality of their opponents at the time. Facing an opponent playing at their best can make any victory more significant, regardless of whether the player is in their prime.

A Data-Driven Approach​

Using tools like Ultimate Tennis Statistics or Elo ratings can provide a more objective framework for these discussions:

• Assign difficulty rankings to opponents based on their form and historical performance.
• Analyze trends in winning percentages and rankings over time instead of relying on subjective judgments about "prime" years.

Conclusion​

Rather than making blanket statements about a player being "past it," consider the broader context: their ability to adapt, moments of peak performance, and the strength of their competition. This nuanced approach can help debunk overly simplistic arguments and foster more meaningful discussions.

ChatGPT content

 

[nolefam_2024]

ChatGPT content

Yes I asked perplexity to rewrite. Chatgpt is very old. Now use new resources

Using new resources, using statistics, these things are for us to use.

 

[mtommer]

It's the same thing.
In the GOAT debate one must enter through the facts....

Except what facts matter and what priority given to any particular fact/s is itself subjective....so one ends up back at the start and bickering ensues per normal. For that matter, that there is a GOAT or need be a debate over such trivial nonsense is itself.......rinse and repeat.

 

[TMF]

this is just a fancy way of trying to say the big 3 were in their prime still in mid 30s.

And trying to say the big 3 have equal opportunity to inflate their slams in the CIE. No one is buying it

 

[Angrybirdstar]

I always give this extreme example.

If one day a player were to play a season in which he literally wins all the tournaments he participates in, therefore the 4 slams, the 9 masters 1000, the ATP Finals, etc., without losing a set in the entire season, all this even against formidable competition (for example 2012).
And that same player before and after that season no longer achieves any relevant success.

Can he enter the GOAT debate?

Absolutely not.
Consistency is the main metric when comparing players' careers.
Prime and pre or post prime are just futile discussions.

why couldn't that be the GOAT

that's an unprecedented accomplishment with literally nothing you could say to detract from it in itself (since we're granting competition and season-long consistency)

i don't think there's an inherent reason to demand accomplishments span an entire career if the single achievements are impressive enough

 

[TheFifthSet]

why couldn't that be the GOAT

Because DataBrain.

Desperately need a @NonP "perils of bean-counting"-themed treatise here.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Because DataBrain.

Desperately need a NonP "perils of bean-counting"-themed treatise here.

saying Safin and Hoad are BOAT, GOAT, and MTOAT is ridiculous. Sampras, on the other hand...

U teenyboppers need to learn the MFin' truth: bean-counting is for stats-obsessed mugs who never grew past "efficiency" stats and have never talked to an actual pro coach or player. Those guys actually understand what they're talking about and not so coincidentally happen to predict and understand what true greatness in the game looks like. Unlike most of you bums, I've done the hard work of learning from actual historians, and since I'm so generous I'll even give you a little tip: Just listen to me, because I'm always right

 

[TheFifthSet]

saying Safin and Hoad are BOAT, GOAT, and MTOAT is ridiculous. Sampras, on the other hand...

U teenyboppers need to learn the MFin' truth: bean-counting is for stats-obsessed mugs who never grew past "efficiency" stats and have never talked to an actual pro coach or player. Those guys actually understand what they're talking about and not so coincidentally happen to predict and understand what true greatness in the game looks like. Unlike most of you bums, I've done the hard work of learning from actual historians, and since I'm so generous I'll even give you a little tip: Just listen to me, because I'm always right

It’s like he never left.

 

[Barton]

saying Safin and Hoad are BOAT, GOAT, and MTOAT is ridiculous. Sampras, on the other hand...

U teenyboppers need to learn the MFin' truth: bean-counting is for stats-obsessed mugs who never grew past "efficiency" stats and have never talked to an actual pro coach or player. Those guys actually understand what they're talking about and not so coincidentally happen to predict and understand what true greatness in the game looks like. Unlike most of you bums, I've done the hard work of learning from actual historians, and since I'm so generous I'll even give you a little tip: Just listen to me, because I'm always right

Hoad is BOAT for me. Highest peak and I feel that the pre-OE players were better at tennis than the OE players.

Take that, @Lleytonstation!

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Tsonga's 2008 Wimbledon performance and his 2014 victory in Canada both represent peak moments in his career, despite being six years apart.

Tsonga was truly unstoppable at Wimbledon 2008, mostly because he never actually started.

 

[Dominic & Andrey]

Tsonga did say that he never could he could summon his 2008 AO SF level ever again.Truly one special match where everything clicked.

 

[Winner Sinner]

why couldn't that be the GOAT

that's an unprecedented accomplishment with literally nothing you could say to detract from it in itself (since we're granting competition and season-long consistency)

i don't think there's an inherent reason to demand accomplishments span an entire career if the single achievements are impressive enough

So basically you only need to do a single season at unrepeatable levels to enter the debate, and where would the meritocracy be?

I repeat, as I see it, the GOAT question must include the entire career, making peak vs peak makes little sense, or rather, it is a comparison that must be taken into consideration but only if the career itself is more or less similar.

 

[Winner Sinner]

why couldn't that be the GOAT

that's an unprecedented accomplishment with literally nothing you could say to detract from it in itself (since we're granting competition and season-long consistency)

i don't think there's an inherent reason to demand accomplishments span an entire career if the single achievements are impressive enough

I offer you a new reflection.

Why doesn't anyone put Wawrinka in a hypothetical all-time ranking on par with or even higher than Murray?

Or because almost no one now considers Borg the GOAT despite the fact that at the time of his first (and essentially final) retirement he was the most successful player in history for his age?

In essence, the Swede is the player who still holds the highest percentage of slams won in relation to the number of participations, but also the highest percentage of victories in matches within the majors.

Maybe because all the rest of the career is missing that others have compiled and he hasn't?

 

[ghostofMecir]

I always give this extreme example.

If one day a player were to play a season in which he literally wins all the tournaments he participates in, therefore the 4 slams, the 9 masters 1000, the ATP Finals, etc., without losing a set in the entire season, all this even against formidable competition (for example 2012).
And that same player before and after that season no longer achieves any relevant success.

Can he enter the GOAT debate?

Absolutely not.
Consistency is the main metric when comparing players' careers.
Prime and pre or post prime are just futile discussions.

Of course he can because “Greatest” is subjective. If you want to add on other parameters you can and most do, but due to a singular peak in what is essentially a 50-50 sport, one can consider this theoretical player the “greatest” since he reached a level nobody else ever could.

 

[ForehandCross]

See Rafael lives near the sea because so his peak is low.

Fraud lives on the Swiss Alps because so his peak is higher

Djokovic goes to bosnian pyramids and transcends space and time to touch skies. His peak is highest.

 

[Kralingen]

I don't know if he is.

You can’t argue against it though. At the very least no one was BOATer

 

[nolefam_2024]

See Rafael lives near the sea because so his peak is low.

Fraud lives on the Swiss Alps because so his peak is higher

Djokovic goes to bosnian pyramids and transcends space and time to touch skies. His peak is highest.

Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and Roger Federer, often referred to as the "Big Three" in tennis, have different approaches to training and relaxation that metaphorically reflect their careers and achievements.

Rafael Nadal resides in a seafront property in Porto Cristo, Mallorca, with over 1,000 square meters of living space1. This luxurious home near sea level symbolizes Nadal's strong connection to his roots and his preference for a grounded approach.

Roger Federer, while not explicitly mentioned in the search results, is associated with Switzerland. The Swiss Alps, home to some of Europe's highest peaks, could represent Federer's consistent excellence and longevity in the sport.

Novak Djokovic has shown interest in the controversial Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids, visiting the site twice in 2020. This unconventional choice aligns with Djokovic's known interest in alternative approaches to health and spirituality. The claims about the site's energy and ancient civilization, though scientifically disputed, metaphorically represent Djokovic's pursuit of peak performance through unique methods.

While these locations and interests don't directly correlate to their tennis achievements, they do reflect aspects of each player's personality and approach to their career.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

@RS we have another Roy Jones BOAT believer

Soon you will join us as all true boxing fans do

GOAT Rapper tbh

 

[fedfan24]

And trying to say the big 3 have equal opportunity to inflate their slams in the CIE. No one is buying it

Absolutely. Federer added a few cherries on top with 3 slams in his twilight years. Djokovic built 50% of his career in them.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

GOAT Rapper tbh

True!!

 

[RS]

You can’t argue against it though. At the very least no one was BOATer

He did it in a way which was pretty pleasing on in the eye. Take Mayweather for example he made fighters for nearly 20 years look pretty hopeless as well but he would get called boring.

 

[Hansen]

He did it in a way which was pretty pleasing on in the eye

that is another criteria in the goat discussion imo. not only if you win but also how you win.

 

[Jonas78]

I consider 2004-2007 Feds peak and 2004-2012 (with a slump in 2008 and 2010) his prime. People might have different views on this though.

 

[TMF]

I consider 2004-2007 Feds peak and 2004-2012 (with a slump in 2008 and 2010) his prime. People might have different views on this though.

2008 Federer was diagnosed with mono, the illness affected his preparation and performance at the Australian Open and onwards

 

[RS]

that is another criteria in the goat discussion imo. not only if you win but also how you win.

I mean I guess your kinda right. How they did is part of what attracts people to sport.

 

[Racquet_smash]

I am impressed when i see a player playing amazing tennis to win their tournaments.

Not when they do nothing more than a normal job and still sweep everything because no one has been good enough to beat them.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I am impressed when i see a player playing amazing tennis to win their tournaments.

Not when they do nothing more than a normal job and still sweep everything because no one has been good enough to beat them.

Ok then you must get impressed with Challenger level player that does above his best to win small event.

That is not good enough for peak of players. So I don't know what is point of this post lol.

 

[nolefam_2024]

@Racquet_smash lol

 

[Racquet_smash]

Ok then you must get impressed with Challenger level player that does above his best to win small event.

That is not good enough for peak of players. So I don't know what is point of this post lol.

That's, very obviously, not what i was saying, lol.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Discussions about whether a player is "past their prime" or "out of their peak" often become contentious because they oversimplify complex performance dynamics. Here's a breakdown of how to approach these debates more constructively:

Understanding Peak vs. Prime​

1. Prime refers to a sustained period when an athlete consistently performs at their best level. For tennis players, this is often between ages 21-29, with the absolute peak typically around 24-28 years old, as shown by performance metrics like Grand Slam wins and ranking points.
2. Peak refers to moments or seasons of exceptional performance, which can occur both inside and outside the "prime" years. Players can achieve peak-level tennis even after their prime by adapting their playstyle, equipment, or fitness regimen.

Debunking Misconceptions​

• Binary Thinking: Arguments that dismiss a player's capabilities entirely because they are no longer in their prime ignore the nuances of athletic performance. For example, players like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic have demonstrated peak-level performances well into their 30s.
• Opponent Context: A player's performance should also be evaluated based on the quality of their opponents at the time. Facing an opponent playing at their best can make any victory more significant, regardless of whether the player is in their prime.

A Data-Driven Approach​

Using tools like Ultimate Tennis Statistics or Elo ratings can provide a more objective framework for these discussions:

• Assign difficulty rankings to opponents based on their form and historical performance.
• Analyze trends in winning percentages and rankings over time instead of relying on subjective judgments about "prime" years.

Conclusion​

Rather than making blanket statements about a player being "past it," consider the broader context: their ability to adapt, moments of peak performance, and the strength of their competition. This nuanced approach can help debunk overly simplistic arguments and foster more meaningful discussions.

Very interesting comments. These definitions are pretty good. I think it’s helpful the way peak is defined here as something that is not necessarily singular, and allows for the concept of a player having multiple peaks separated in some cases by multiple seasons, and even outside of competitive prime.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Very interesting comments. These definitions are pretty good. I think it’s helpful the way peak is defined here as something that is not necessarily singular, and allows for the concept of a player having multiple peaks separated in some cases by multiple seasons, and even outside of competitive prime.

Exactly. The definition removed the shackles from tennis analysis.

 

[Subway Tennis]

Exactly. The definition removed the shackles from tennis analysis.

Agree. I think the terms are still clearly defined enough to avoid argument for the sake of argument, but there is still enough scope for players with non-standard career arcs to be assessed fairly.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

So basically you only need to do a single season at unrepeatable levels to enter the debate, and where would the meritocracy be?

i think the existence of a debate hinges on the subjective weighting of the various relevant factors, such as peak vs longevity like we're discussing. i would define a GOATed peak as some sufficiently large set of performances, under player-specific but generally malleable bounds, that most nearly approach theoretical perfection. i think such a peak can make up for lacking (absolutely or relatively) longevity, without even needing to be an impossibly great peak year in the manner you describe. i think greatness is primarily about making the typically (for nearly every other pro player) ephemeral single-match peak performance into a horribly reliable occurrence:

a certain level of tennis [that] is sufficient for comparable domination against non-GOAT competition. i would argue that's the basic idea behind being recognized as a GOAT level player

that's why i'd say Seles or McEnroe have reasonable GOAT cases, along with the more standard picks of Djokovic, Serena, or whoever else. nonetheless i think players who don't have traditionally highly regarded peaks (like Rosewall or Evert), still have high enough peaks to merit consideration and then be further valued for how reliably they could play close to their best

Why doesn't anyone put Wawrinka in a hypothetical all-time ranking on par with or even higher than Murray?

because Wawrinka's peak wasn't that high (absolutely or relative to Murray) and he didn't bring it that often, so Murray's much greater consistency wins out

Or because almost no one now considers Borg the GOAT despite the fact that at the time of his first (and essentially final) retirement he was the most successful player in history for his age?

well that's because people are simply wrong i fear