[POLL] Are slam titles really the only metric to determine the GOAT?

[Winner Sinner]

Let me start by saying that I don't want to direct the discussion to superfluous topics such as popularity, style, and many other such superficial issues.

Since the beginning of the world, in sport the ultimate goal is to win, every other question is irrelevant.
So those who achieve the greatest successes should be given a preferential lane when debating the GOAT topic.

Having said that, I wondered why some only take slams into consideration.
These are obviously the most important and prestigious tournaments, however the fact remains that the tennis calendar is not structured only on those 4 tournaments.
The same ranking that at the end of the year essentially assigns the best player of the season to whoever ends the year at number 1, does not only take into consideration the counting of points scored in the slams.

All this to say that I think Djokovic is the GOAT not only because he has scored the most slams, but also because he holds the record in other areas, such as the most weeks and seasons finished at number 1, the most ATP Finals, the most masters 1000, in general the most big titles, and also commands the h2h against the main rivals of his generation.

Ultimately, if one day there was a player capable of taking away Djokovic's record of slam wins, but at the same time accumulating fewer weeks and seasons closed at number 1, fewer ATP Finals, fewer Masters 1000s, in general fewer big titles, I I'm absolutely not convinced I can consider him the GOAT.

What do you think?

 

[GRASScaraz]

No aura level is the only object measure

 

[weakera]

There is a difference between greatest and most accomplished. Also love is an important metric in the debate, specifically love from fans.

 

[mwym]

If a person cannot understand quality - a person will simulate competence by using quantity.

'GOAT' does not exist. It just helps faking it. No biggie.

edit: In competitive sport the goal is to win. Djokovic won. Period. By superior quality. His numbers are just a proxy for those who do not grasp which quality.

 

[GrassMasters]

It's about elegance

 

[CoolCoolCool]

Anything numbers can't convey.

 

[roysid]

Djokovic satisfies every criteria including most slams (atleast 3 at each) , most masters (atleast 2 in each), most atp finals win, most weeks at no 1 and most year end finish and positive h2h against everyone excluding Roddick

There is hardly any doubt in it

 

[Winner Sinner]

Here comes the "numbers aren't everything" party.

Tomorrow I'll call Sinner or Alcaraz and tell them that the important thing is not winning but the way in which you participate.
Why celebrate a victory at Wimbledon, when you can celebrate a crowd that tolerates you or the elegance with which you play?

Why did Federer's fans accept the verdict of the Wimbledon 2019 final badly, in a match in which Federer showed his best tennis with the crowd on his side?
If these are the main factors then that day Federer's fans instead of falling into despair over the outcome of the match, on the contrary should have celebrated.

I know a lot about the story of the fox and the grapes.

 

[Jonesy]

Fed fans used weeks at n1 as a second metric for some years because he was inferior to Sampras in the Ye1 metric, but to be honest i always got more impressed with the Ye1 because it proved you were the best for that year.

It doesn't really matter in the end because Novak has it all. But in the future i believe Ye1 should be heavier than weeks at n1.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Slams and weeks are most important criteria of all time.

After that there is no other need but I would still demand completeness.

 

[Nappa]

Youngest to reach the Golden CYGS

Having won at Queens is also a must

 

[MichaelNadal]

Slayage, battles, and mythical matches in epic kits

 

[FreeJannik]

We need an objective criteria, free from any recency bias.
So after long reflection i came to this conclusion: the winner of AO2025 is the GOAT, past and future results doesn't matter.

 

[RoddickAce]

Many factors...but looking at pure data without considering context would be penalizing past greats for simply being born in a different era, considering that the data is skewed by i) significantly extended career longevity thanks to modern training and medicine, ii) string technology that allows players to be more consistent, iii) slowing of court speeds favouring consistent baseline rallies / low risk games while being less subject to upsets, iv) AO no longer being skipped by top players for being a "lesser" slam or being too far to travel to, v) importance of Slams vs. "Pro slams", etc.

In other words, what could Laver, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Sampras, etc. could have realistically done to reach 20+ slams in their times? Invent new technology/science/revamp court speeds/etc. to the levels that modern players have easy access to these days?

Put another way, what would happen if we transported the Big 3 to the 80's? Would a gluten-free diet even be feasibly accessible? Could the Big 3 produce the same angles/consistency without poly?

Tl;dr - cannot compare across eras. "GOAT" cannot be established simply based on stats which inherently favour modern players.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Many factors...but looking at pure data without considering context would be penalizing past greats for simply being born in a different era, considering that the data is skewed by i) significantly extended career longevity thanks to modern training and medicine, ii) string technology that allows players to be more consistent, iii) slowing of court speeds favouring consistent baseline rallies / low risk games while being less subject to upsets, iv) AO no longer being skipped by top players for being a "lesser" slam or being too far to travel to, v) importance of Slams vs. "Pro slams", etc.

In other words, what could Laver, McEnroe, Borg, Connors, Sampras, etc. could have realistically done to reach 20+ slams in their times? Invent new technology/science/revamp court speeds/etc. to the levels that modern players have easy access to these days?

Put another way, what would happen if we transported the Big 3 to the 80's? Would a gluten-free diet even be feasibly accessible? Could the Big 3 produce the same angles/consistency without poly?

Tl;dr - cannot compare across eras. "GOAT" cannot be established simply based on stats which inherently favour modern players.

This is cowards way out. Changes will keep happening and players need to adapt. The goat will have to be adaptable , comprehensively better than others and of course luck needs to be on their side as well.

I don't care what McEnroe could do with poly and all such hypotheticals. That's changing entire game. McEnroe never won Roland Garros. McEnroe barely stretched his career peak post 84, because of various factors but lack of ambition is definitely in it.

In the end all this noise completely overshadows and we are left with just numbers. Numbers may give Alcaraz the tag if he is worthy. Or someone not yet born. The GOAT will keep changing. It's not tied to the past. The past guys are overcome.

 

[RoddickAce]

This is cowards way out. Changes will keep happening and players need to adapt. The goat will have to be adaptable , comprehensively better than others and of course luck needs to be on their side as well.

I don't care what McEnroe could do with poly and all such hypotheticals. That's changing entire game. McEnroe never won Roland Garros. McEnroe barely stretched his career peak post 84, because of various factors but lack of ambition is definitely in it.

In the end all this noise completely overshadows and we are left with just numbers. Numbers may give Alcaraz the tag if he is worthy. Or someone not yet born. The GOAT will keep changing. It's not tied to the past. The past guys are overcome.

If in the year 2065, PED's are allowed and players are in their prime for 50 years, would that make their 40+ slams greater than Djoko's 24?

What if the six kings slam becomes a real slam and is added to the slam tally?

We can't penalize past greats for what they can't control. That's like saying Elon Musk is a greater businessman than Henry Ford without accounting for the easy access to technology, sharing of info, reach to the masses, inflation and that everything we now know is built on the shoulders of giants (i.e. the past greats we are penalizing).

 

[TripleATeam]

We've had this discussion before. There's not a soul that believes Murray is equal to Pouille at the Australian Open because they're both at 0 titles. Nor is he worse than Thomas Johansson because Thomas won 1.

Slams aren't everything. They're first in a list of things that will be different for everyone.

1. Slams
2. Time at #1 (Weeks / YE#1s)
3. YEC (ATP Finals)
2.5-4.5. Olympics (some say better than YEC, some say worse than M1000, but almost everyone says in this range somewhere)
4. M1000s
5. Total titles

Along with H2H, career dominance, intangibles, sets (CYGS, CGS, Golden Masters, Super Slam, etc), and level of competition (subjective). Regardless of what you think about everyone that plays tennis, if you consider GOAT something that can be measured, then you should think it's Djokovic (most slams, most time at #1, most YECs, 1 Olympics - tied for 2nd most on men's side, most M1000s, and among the most total titles.

If someone comes along and supplants all of those records, I'd have a hard time saying they're not the new GOAT. Of course there's judgement calls. What about 25 slams, less time at #1, no Olympics, but more Masters and total titles and better H2H against rivals? Would be tough to say.

 

[nolefam_2024]

If in the year 2065, PED's are allowed and players are in their prime for 50 years, would that make their 40+ slams greater than Djoko's 24?

What if the six kings slam becomes a real slam and is added to the slam tally?

We can't penalize past greats for what they can't control. That's like saying Elon Musk is a greater businessman than Henry Ford without accounting for the easy access to technology, sharing of info, reach to the masses, inflation and that everything we now know is built on the shoulders of giants (i.e. the past greats we are penalizing).

PED will not be allowed.

And yes when not if players make slams post age 40 not FIFTY stop being ridiculous.

Completely stop.

Then yes they will be better than Djokovic after getting more slams and weeks

What members don't understand is how much the GOAT candidate players have given up to be competitive. Same with fed and his adding new coaches and rackets. Same with nadal and his 100 injuries and rehabs.

It's stupid as hell to think these guys are just playing well because of racket and modern medicine. The mental strength as well as physical and technical skills required to stay relevant with every passing generation is immense. Especially as your own body fails you.

Now I would not allow a cowards way out here.

 

[nolefam_2024]

If you could even have 1% of the ability of the goat candidate players to push yourself beyond what is estimated to be your physical and mental limits, you would be Uber successful.

Completely underrated part of the game. And reduces the discussion of past guys ever holding a candle to big 3.

Exceptions do exist and rod laver and rosewall can be exceptions but I don't know much about that era to speak more. So I give them just the benefit of the doubt. That is all they get as well. Doubtful admiration.

 

[nolefam_2024]

We don't penalize past greats like nick kyrgios did.

But we don't give them a single bit extra than what they achieved at all. Especially to the guys Sampras Agassi who are merely 10 years away from the fed.

Yes in the past ao was not played but who cares when the difference between 24 and 6/7 is ridiculously large.

 

[RoddickAce]

PED will not be allowed.

And yes when not if players make slams post age 40 not FIFTY stop being ridiculous.

Completely stop.

Then yes they will be better than Djokovic after getting more slams and weeks

What members don't understand is how much the GOAT candidate players have given up to be competitive. Same with fed and his adding new coaches and rackets. Same with nadal and his 100 injuries and rehabs.

It's stupid as hell to think these guys are just playing well because of racket and modern medicine. The mental strength as well as physical and technical skills required to stay relevant with every passing generation is immense. Especially as your own body fails you.

Now I would not allow a cowards way out here.

No one is saying that Big 3 will win 0 slams without modern tech. But modern science allows great players to STAY great for much, much longer.

If you don't see how giving an extra 10 prime years at the top, to players like Sampras, McEnroe, etc can significantly boost their stats then I don't see a point in debating anymore.

What is "stupid as hell" is to ignore the above, and to ignore that there are many "greatest" players with the best stats emerging across all sports in the past 15 years, which of course is just pure coincidence and has nothing to do with extended career longevity and modern science right?

 

[nolefam_2024]

No one is saying that Big 3 will win 0 slams without modern tech. But modern science allows great players to STAY great for much, much longer.

If you don't see how giving an extra 10 prime years at the top, to players like Sampras, McEnroe, etc can significantly boost their stats then I don't see a point in debating anymore.

What is "stupid as hell" is to ignore the above, and to ignore that there are many "greatest" players with the best stats emerging across all sports in the past 15 years, which of course is just pure coincidence and has nothing to do with extended career longevity and modern science right?

No way would anyone give extra 10 years prime years to Sampras and McEnroe.

Sampras stopped winning in 2001 itself. His body broke down. It's his own fault. McEnroe is much much worse. Himself admitted the drive is gone post 84.

I would not ignore it and yet would not yield a single inch.

Zero hypothetical achievements.

What you do you do in real life. Not in hypothetical

 

[GrassMasters]

Djokovic fans are happy to ignore context now that their guy has all the numbers, because it benefits them. Just like Federer fans before that. When Sinner gets to 30 slams I'm sure context would suddenly matter. That just the reality. We're all biased.

 

[RoddickAce]

No way would anyone give extra 10 years prime years to Sampras and McEnroe.

Sampras stopped winning in 2001 itself. His body broke down. It's his own fault. McEnroe is much much worse. Himself admitted the drive is gone post 84.

I would not ignore it and yet would not yield a single inch.

Zero hypothetical achievements.

What you do you do in real life. Not in hypothetical

Why do you think his body broke down? Do you think modern training and science would not have helped?

Funny you ask about my job - I do expert witness work where I prepare "hypothetical" models accepted by the courts, and is subject to peer review and scrutiny.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic fans are happy to ignore context now that their guy has all the numbers, because it benefits them. Just like Federer fans before that. When Sinner gets to 30 slams I'm sure context would suddenly matter. That just the reality. We're all biased.

I am not biased. we are not all the same. There are many Federer fans who without bias give the nod to Djokovic.

It's probably you who is biased. Stop being so.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Why do you think his body broke down? Do you think modern training and science would not have helped?

Funny you ask about my job - I do expert witness work where I prepare "hypothetical" models accepted by the courts, and is subject to peer review and scrutiny.

His body broke down because he did not take care of it. No other reason.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Djokovic did everything and beyond what fed fans hoped their guy to do.

Criteria/Accomplishments for GOAT

Even though, I am an admittedly very biased, Federer worshiper, I do not think the man can win another Grand Slam. That being said, I also think Nadal can surpass Federer's 16 Grand Slams. If Nadal does, is he the automatic GOAT? I would be reluctant to call him the GOAT if he doesn't...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

Win three different majors at least three times - bettered it to 4

Have more weeks at number one - bettered it to 428

Have more consecutive weeks at number one - no

Have more seasons of winning three grand slams in a season - did it

Win at least one ATP Masters Cup - bettered it wit 7

Have greater consistency - at least 10 Grand Slam consecutive Grand Slam semifinals and 4 Grand Slam consecutive Grand Slam finals

With Federer, I would only be reluctant to call him the GOAT because of the following:
Head to Head Record vs Nadal - did it

Lack of Davis Cup Win - did it

Lack of Olympics Win - did it

 

[johnmccabe]

Influence on the sport

 

[Incognito]

Slams first, the rest is tie-breaker. Djoker is the statistical GOAT. He is also the fittest to hold a tennis racquet.

Do I consider him the greatest ever? Nope. There are at least 2 players that are at least as good as him, some would argue even better.

 

[inflation_era]

impact and overall money earned.

 

[Neptune]

No one is saying that Big 3 will win 0 slams without modern tech. But modern science allows great players to STAY great for much, much longer.

If you don't see how giving an extra 10 prime years at the top, to players like Sampras, McEnroe, etc can significantly boost their stats then I don't see a point in debating anymore.

What is "stupid as hell" is to ignore the above, and to ignore that there are many "greatest" players with the best stats emerging across all sports in the past 15 years, which of course is just pure coincidence and has nothing to do with extended career longevity and modern science right?

At least try comparing Sampras and McEnroe to Connors and Lendl first—if you know how to compare at all.

 

[nolefam_2024]

At least try comparing Sampras and McEnroe to Connors and Lendl first—if you know how to compare at all.

Exactly. Sampras and lendl should be compared. Not big 3.

 

[MichaelNadal]

My bestie working HARD in here lol, keyboard got DENTS

 

[nolefam_2024]

And completely forget about McEnroe. He is not even leader of his own time. Talking about McEnroe wow

 

[Pheasant]

I’ve always put more weight on weeks at #1 than slams. However, slams are #2.

Thst said, I’ve never gotten why people have animosity towards other players; especially direct rivals. Trashing rivals is indirectly trashing your favorite.

And yes, eras do matter. Players today get access to much better training, medicine, surgeons, supplements, nutrition, technology, etc. Also, the equipment is better and the courts are safer. Hell, even in racquetball, I’m able to play fairly well in my 50s, mainly due to the change in the rackets, balls, and shoes. And of course, the physical therapy that I’ve taken advantage of has made a big difference for my bad knees. The crappy rackets and balls had me dealing with chronic tennis elbow in my 20s. That went away with modern equipment. The shoes 35 years ago sucked compared to today. As far as tennis rackets go, I always got the hand-me-downs from my older sister, who was a competitive tennis player. I can’t believe how crappy those old 1970s and even 1980s rackets were. What a joke!

Is Fed a top-5 player ever? I’m not sure anymore. He didn’t win his own era. So he might not be. So what? I loved his style of play and I really enjoyed watching his brand of tennis. Is McEnroe a top-10 player ever? I honestly don’t know anymore. But again, so what? I loved his style of play. He’s still my all time favorite player.

Of course, Fed and especially Mac have been retired for a while now. So I moved on a long time ago. Now, I’ve got Alcaraz and Sinner to cheer for, along with any American. And honestly, it’s a lot more fun having more than one favorite, kind of like when I liked both Agassi and Sampras in the 1990s.

 

[RoddickAce]

At least try comparing Sampras and McEnroe to Connors and Lendl first—if you know how to compare at all.

Is it not circular logic...to use someone's slam count to label / group their greatness, when the debate itself is about whether the slam count is skewed and a fair metric...

Furthermore the purpose of using "etc." is so that I don't have to list out every single past great. I'm not just using Sampras and McEnroe as examples...I can link you to wikipedia if you prefer the whole list instead of "etc."

 

[nolefam_2024]

If slams and weeks are not enough then fans are not knowledgeable about what tennis means.

 

[NYTennisfan]

That's actually a really good question and a tough one to answer, I'm almost shocked considering all the clutter on TTW lately.

I voted overall titles but have thought about it and I'm now leaning towards impact on tennis, aura, a player that transcends the game. So when discussing things that are relatively equal like with The Big 3, although Djokovic has kind of pulled away from the pack a bit, I think impact on the game in general/aura is the tiebeaker so I'm actually leaning Federer as the GOAT.
Nobody in tennis history IMO has transcended the game like he has not only with his elegant and aesthetically pleasing to watch game but his overall presence/popularity, they way he carried himself/promoted the game etc. so I give the title to Fed. I'm sure many will disapprove of this post but this is my post and I'm sticking by it.

Oh and I also value peak very highly with all things relatively equal and nobody had a peakier and longer peak than Federer.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I think 2 slams, 8 extra masters, Olympics along with total clay domination trumps 6 atp finals and 100 weeks along with 11 more titles and higher peak of Federer.

But that is barely better. If Nadal had 1 less slam then Federer would be better but barely. At 20-20 fed was ahead of nadal I would say definitely.

 

[Winner Sinner]

If slams and weeks are not enough then fans are not knowledgeable about what tennis means.

Why prefer the number of weeks at number 1 instead of the seasons ended at number 1?

In 2019, do you want to be Djokovic, i.e. almost uninterrupted number 1 throughout the season, or Nadal, i.e. number 1 at the end of the year?

In 2019 I would prefer to be the Nadal of the situation rather than the Djokovic of the situation.

 

[Tensky1]

There is a difference between greatest and most accomplished. Also love is an important metric in the debate, specifically love from fans.

This is what delusion sounds like. Can tell you’ve never played any level of sports before.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Why prefer the number of weeks at number 1 instead of the seasons ended at number 1?

In 2019, do you want to be Djokovic, i.e. almost uninterrupted number 1 throughout the season, or Nadal, i.e. number 1 at the end of the year?

In 2019 I would prefer to be the Nadal of the situation rather than the Djokovic of the situation.

That is a good point. But weeks give more idea of domination. Year end number 1 can be close race like 2013 2016 and 2019. But all those years Djokovic was ranked 1 for very long time. Nadal can't just come and go as he like without it taking a hit on the legacy.

 

[nolefam_2024]

If you are very dominant number 1 your weeks will pile up like it did with fedkovic. Vs someone like nadal who didn't.

 

[Neptune]

I'm actually leaning Federer as the GOAT.

LOL, do you have any clue how much the establishment can BOOST a king in a weaker era and HINDER a king in a stronger era?

Career​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed​	179 (104-75) 58.10%​	11.73%​	347 (224-123) 64.55%​	22.74%​	1179 (1027-152) 87.11%​	77.26%​	1526 (1251-275) 81.98%​
Lendl​	163 (94-69) 57.67%​	12.44%​	257 (165-92) 64.20%​	19.62%​	1053 (903-150) 85.75%​	80.38%​	1310 (1068-242) 81.53%​
Peak​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed 04-09​	67 (44-23) 65.67%​	13.59%​	121 (91-30) 75.21%​	24.54%​	372 (351-21) 94.35%​	75.46%​	493 (442-51) 89.66%​
Lendl 84-89​	74 (52-22) 70.27%​	15.81%​	116 (83-33) 71.55%​	24.79%​	352 (333-19) 94.60%​	75.21%​	468 (416-52) 88.89%​
Career Finals​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed​	61 (30-31) 49.18%​	39.10%​	98 (58-40) 59.18%​	62.82%​	58 (45-13) 77.59%​	37.18%​	156 (103-53) 66.03%​
Lendl​	71 (35-36) 49.30%​	48.97%​	89 (47-42) 52.81%​	61.38%​	56 (46-10) 82.14%​	38.62%​	145 (93-52) 64.14%​
Peak Finals​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed 04-09​	30 (17-13) 56.67%​	45.45%​	44 (30-14) 68.18%​	66.67%​	22 (20-2) 90.91%​	33.33%​	66 (50-16) 75.76%​
Lendl 84-89​	37 (20-17) 54.05%​	56.92%​	45 (24-21) 53.33%​	69.23%​	20 (19-1) 95.00%​	30.77%​	65 (43-22) 66.15%​

 

[weakera]

This is what delusion sounds like. Can tell you’ve never played any level of sports before.

This sounds exactly like projection... awkward

 

[NYTennisfan]

LOL

Career​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed​	179 (104-75) 58.10%​	11.73%​	347 (224-123) 64.55%​	22.74%​	1179 (1027-152) 87.11%​	77.26%​	1526 (1251-275) 81.98%​
Lendl​	163 (94-69) 57.67%​	12.44%​	257 (165-92) 64.20%​	19.62%​	1053 (903-150) 85.75%​	80.38%​	1310 (1068-242) 81.53%​
Peak​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed 04-09​	67 (44-23) 65.67%​	13.59%​	121 (91-30) 75.21%​	24.54%​	372 (351-21) 94.35%​	75.46%​	493 (442-51) 89.66%​
Lendl 84-89​	74 (52-22) 70.27%​	15.81%​	116 (83-33) 71.55%​	24.79%​	352 (333-19) 94.60%​	75.21%​	468 (416-52) 88.89%​
Career Finals​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed​	61 (30-31) 49.18%​	39.10%​	98 (58-40) 59.18%​	62.82%​	58 (45-13) 77.59%​	37.18%​	156 (103-53) 66.03%​
Lendl​	71 (35-36) 49.30%​	48.97%​	89 (47-42) 52.81%​	61.38%​	56 (46-10) 82.14%​	38.62%​	145 (93-52) 64.14%​
Peak Finals​	vs Top5​	T5 Weight​	vs Top10​	T10 Weight​	vs T11+​	T11+ Weight​	vs All​
Fed 04-09​	30 (17-13) 56.67%​	45.45%​	44 (30-14) 68.18%​	66.67%​	22 (20-2) 90.91%​	33.33%​	66 (50-16) 75.76%​
Lendl 84-89​	37 (20-17) 54.05%​	56.92%​	45 (24-21) 53.33%​	69.23%​	20 (19-1) 95.00%​	30.77%​	65 (43-22) 66.15%​

Did you actually read my post? Doesn't seem like it.
I said Federer gets the nod, with all else being relatively equal, due to aura/impact on the game.

 

[Drob]

Let me start by saying that I don't want to direct the discussion to superfluous topics such as popularity, style, and many other such superficial issues.

Since the beginning of the world, in sport the ultimate goal is to win, every other question is irrelevant.
So those who achieve the greatest successes should be given a preferential lane when debating the GOAT topic.

Having said that, I wondered why some only take slams into consideration.
These are obviously the most important and prestigious tournaments, however the fact remains that the tennis calendar is not structured only on those 4 tournaments.
The same ranking that at the end of the year essentially assigns the best player of the season to whoever ends the year at number 1, does not only take into consideration the counting of points scored in the slams.

All this to say that I think Djokovic is the GOAT not only because he has scored the most slams, but also because he holds the record in other areas, such as the most weeks and seasons finished at number 1, the most ATP Finals, the most masters 1000, in general the most big titles, and also commands the h2h against the main rivals of his generation.

Ultimately, if one day there was a player capable of taking away Djokovic's record of slam wins, but at the same time accumulating fewer weeks and seasons closed at number 1, fewer ATP Finals, fewer Masters 1000s, in general fewer big titles, I I'm absolutely not convinced I can consider him the GOAT.

What do you think?

OTHER:

Davis Cup record, 1920 - 2018

 

[ND-13]

Public acceptance and their admiration is what matters at the end of the day.

If you have all the records but not enough admiration, they you are the most accomplished.

But the greatest is factored by public perception.

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

No one thought of that the slam metric determining GOAT until Sampras catched Emerson. Then it really became a thing in 2009. So not really probably cause it’s a modern thing

Did anyone ever say. “Boy that Emerson was GOAT” LOL

 

[Centrius]

No one thought of that the slam metric determining GOAT until Sampras catched Emerson. Then it really became a thing in 2009. So not really probably cause it’s a modern thing

Did anyone ever say. “Boy that Emerson was GOAT” LOL

Wasn't Borg the guy with the record back then?