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

[JMR]

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

No, Borg never held the all-time slam record. Emerson was the record holder, with 12, until he was passed by Sampras. Borg did hold the record for most slams won in the Open Era, with 11, until Sampras passed him. Laver also had 11 slams, including two CYGS runs, but some of his were from the amateur era.

The reason Emerson never got much support as the potential greatest ever is that all of his slams came from the amateur era. Emmo was winning slams as an amateur in the 1960s when Laver and Rosewall were playing as pros. (But note that Emerson did defeat a young Laver to win his first two slams.)

 

[fedfan24]

Having a OHBH is a pre requisite.

 

[insideguy]

Ya know I am not a big Novak fan. But I will say this at least his 24 is solid. Meaning one could argue some of the 70's early 80's guys would have got more slams if not for various factors on tour but they wouldn't have got to 24.

I say this because the women's slam records are much much much more clouded and controversial. And tainted in various ways.

 

[aliceinpains]

Slams mainly

 

[Sudacafan]

We are venturing into uncharted territory here.

Kindly allow me a couple of weeks to respond, as I need time to familiarize myself with this entirely new approach to evaluating the worth of tennis professionals.

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

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.

If Sinner overtakes Djokovic numbers then he’s the GOAT. No doubt about it. I’m always consistent.

 

[thrust]

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.

YE at #1
Slams
Weeks at #1
Big Titles Won

 

[Gazelle]

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.

I don't rate the extra masters because Fed had no masters on grass.

Imagine Nadal if no clay masters.

 

[Mainad]

I don't rate the extra masters because Fed had no masters on grass.

Imagine Nadal if no clay masters.

If Halle had been a Masters then Fed would have been on 38 titles, 2 ahead of Nadal but still 2 behind Djokovic.

 

[GabeT]

If Halle had been a Masters then Fed would have been on 38 titles, 2 ahead of Nadal but still 2 behind Djokovic.

Also if Halle had been a masters Fed would have faced a different competition and chances are would not have won as much.

 

[Alcawrath]

The concept of a GOAT is fundamentally flawed to begin with.

 

[GabeT]

The concept of a GOAT is fundamentally flawed to begin with.

Possibly true. But we have plenty of posters who were quite happy to claim “slams are all that matter” when their fav player was ahead.

 

[nolefam_2024]

The concept of a GOAT is fundamentally flawed to begin with.

Wrong

 

[Oleksandr.Usyk]

If Halle had been a Masters then Fed would have been on 38 titles, 2 ahead of Nadal but still 2 behind Djokovic.

If if if ... Djokovic and Nadal would took 70 percent of Halle Masters 1000 titles IIFFFFF it would have been Masters 1000. This is exactly why Federer can NOT be considered as the best Grass court player ever. Laver, Borg, Sampras and Djokovic have the edge over inflated Roger.

 

[TMF]

NO.

There's no general consensus in list of criteria for evaluating the player's placement in ATG

 

[Oleksandr.Usyk]

NO.

There's no general consensus in list of criteria for evaluating the player's placement in ATG

Of course there is.

GSlams > titles at the ATP World Tour Finals > big titles > weeks as number one > Masters 1000 > H2H.

You can deny as much as you want, but main criteria are deciding between majority of fans and tennis experts.

 

[GabeT]

NO.

There's no general consensus in list of criteria for evaluating the player's placement in ATG

This was you a few years ago:

‘We can only go by their achievements, titles, records/streaks and consistency playing against the entire field.”

how times change

 

[TMF]

If course there is.

GSlams > titles at the ATP World Tour Finals > big titles > weeks as number one > Masters 1000 > H2H.

You can deny as much as you want, but main criteria are deciding between majority of fans and tennis experts.

That's just YOUR opinion

 

[GoatNo1]

i think that YE#1 is more important than slam and more than 50 weeks too. but it is not one of the options.

 

[Oleksandr.Usyk]

That's just YOUR opinion

Maybe you could share your GODlish opinion. I am sure a lot of people would be curious.

 

[Hitman]

Possibly true. But we have plenty of posters who were quite happy to claim “slams are all that matter” when their fav player was ahead.

Are you saying they started moving the goal posts?

 

[GabeT]

That's just YOUR opinion

most slam titles is the holy grail of tennis achievement.

 

[TMF]

This was you a few years ago:

‘We can only go by their achievements, titles, records/streaks and consistency playing against the entire field.”

how times change

Before the CIE is not a few years ago.

No actual quote means nothing

 

[nolefam_2024]

Are you saying they started moving the goal posts?

 

[GabeT]

Are you saying they started moving the goal posts?

 

[GabeT]

Before the CIE is not a few years ago.

No actual quote means nothing

Lol


you actually went back and deleted your post when you were caught. You just forgot the post had been quoted multiple times.

 

[GoatNo1]

T1: YE#1, slams, weeks @ #1, CGS, CGM

T2: WTF, OG, highest ATP points

T3: masters

T4: all titles, h2h, W%

 

[TMF]

Maybe you could share your GODlish opinion. I am sure a lot of people would be curious.

Everyone has his/her own criteria or method to evaluate greatness. For me it's a combination of many factors - technical skill, physical ability, mental fortitude, competitive record, impact on their sport, role model, leadership qualities, consistency of performance, adaptability to different situations, sportsmanship, and dedication to training

 

[TMF]

Lol


you actually went back and deleted your post when you were caught. You just forgot the post had been quoted multiple times.

It's that all you got?
I mean you got NOTHING

 

[GabeT]

It's that all you got?
I mean you got NOTHING

I’m quoting you, so yeah, that’s pretty much nothing

 

[nolefam_2024]

T1: YE#1, slams, weeks @ #1, CGS, CGM

T2: WTF, OG, highest ATP points

T3: masters

T4: all titles, h2h, W%

I think all sensible people agree with this criteria.

Now some might be very angry that only Djokovic owns all records and we nolefams celebrate it.

But if you remove us nolefams, all fans accept this criteria.

So the only question is should we even stop just because it makes some angry.

 

[TMF]

I’m quoting you, so yeah, that’s pretty much nothing

fake quote


Here's a real quote:

Old Djokovic vultured 10 slams since 2019, a 10/20 conversation rate against the NextGen mugs with no ATG
The rest of the 90s born players only won 2 slams

Old Djokovic vultured 153 weeks at #1 since 2019
The rest of the 90s born players combined, only Medvedev have reached #1 with only 16 weeks

Old Djkovic nearly won 2 Calendar Slam in 2021 and 2023

Old Djkovic ended the YE #1 3 times
The rest of the 90s born players, not a single player have ever

The 2000s born players(Alcaraz & Sinners ) have already achieved way more than the entire 90s born players.
5 slams > 2 slams 1
YE #1 > 0 YE #1
46 weeks #1 > 16 weeks #1

Federer was always ahead of Nole in slams during the strong competition. Only Djokovic vultured too many slams in the CIE and eventually took the lead with another cake walk draw in Wimbledon 2022.



Peak and prime players in the 20s(90s born players) should held their ground and take over the tour, but they are too weak to hold off an old, injured Djokvic who should have retired like many of the past great ATG who faced quality competition.

You can cry me a river, but the harsh reality still stands the test of time.

 

[GabeT]

You can cry me a river, but the harsh reality still stands the test of time.

The harsh reality is that when Fed was ahead in the slam race you claimed all that we could compare were achievements and that winning the most slams was the greatest tennis achievement of all.

But now you’ve changed your mind.

I wonder why?

 

[Neptune]

Fed has only 8 top5 wins at slam finals, less than half of Nole's, lol

Top5 Wins​	Slam​	Slam F​	Slam SF+​
Nole​	40​	19​	35​
Fed​	29​	8​	23​

 

[nolefam_2024]

Fed has only 8 top5 wins at slam finals, less than half of Nole's, lol

Top5 Wins​	Slam​	Slam F​	Slam SF+​
Nole​	40​	19​	35​
Fed​	29​	8​	23​

I think its undisputed Djokovic is greatest 21 st century.

Only people saying he is not GOAT saying you can't measure the greatness across generations matter

The fan boys of federer should be totally ignored. They have zero claim now.

 

[Oleksandr.Usyk]

Everyone has his/her own criteria or method to evaluate greatness. For me it's a combination of many factors - technical skill, physical ability, mental fortitude, competitive record, impact on their sport, leadership qualities, consistency of performance, adaptability to different situations, sportsmanship, and dedication to training

Majority of criteria you have mentioned are subjective... Not really measureable.

 

[Oleksandr.Usyk]

I think its undisputed Djokovic is greatest 21 st century.

Only people saying he is not GOAT saying you can't measure the greatness across generations matter

The fan boys of federer should be totally ignored. They have zero claim now.

Nobody can deny that Djokovic and Laver are two Undisputed GOATs. Djokovic is number one for me, but I respect history and Laver is there for previous era. Federer's or Nadal's legacy is clearly inferior to Laver's.

 

[Mainad]

If if if ... Djokovic and Nadal would took 70 percent of Halle Masters 1000 titles IIFFFFF it would have been Masters 1000. This is exactly why Federer can NOT be considered as the best Grass court player ever. Laver, Borg, Sampras and Djokovic have the edge over inflated Roger.

Why would they? Halle may not have Masters status but it is still 1 of the 2 premier grasscourt events in the world after Wimbledon (along with Queen's).

 

[roysid]

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.

If popularity, conduct on and off court and playing style is the criteria then Federer wins hands down. He is like the golden boy of tennis.
His tennis achievements are also tremendous. Nadal is equally impressive. But Djokovic has surpassed all. That's the plan cold fact

 

[GabeT]

Why would they? Halle may not have Masters status but it is still 1 of the 2 premier grasscourt events in the world after Wimbledon (along with Queen's).

The point is that if Halle had been a masters the competition would have been very different (Novak played only once there IIRC) and Federer’s results would have been likely different

 

[MichaelNadal]

What did my bestie have for dinner?

 

[TMF]

The harsh reality is that when Fed was ahead in the slam race you claimed all that we could compare were achievements and that winning the most slams was the greatest tennis achievement of all.

But now you’ve changed your mind.

I wonder why?

Once again you're wrong as usual. I've alway maintained that Djokovic inflated in the CIE since the NextGen mug from the 90s born players failed to take over the tour

 

[TMF]

Majority of criteria you have mentioned are subjective... Not really measureable.

Which you proved my point. Everyone has his/her own criteria and no universal list

 

[MichaelNadal]

Once again you're wrong as usual. I've alway maintained that Djokovic inflated in the CIE since the NextGen mug from the 90s born players failed to take over the tour

You know I respect you but you absolutely went nuts on how no one was close to Federer bc of his stats. It is what it is, yes I completely agree Novak got lucky af with his circumstances. But you were the biggest stat person here when Federer had them.

 

[Hitman]

I like CIE is used as if it is some official objective term used by the ATP and ITF, instead of it being a coping mechanism by a small corner of the fans on the internet.

CIE - Coping Immeasurably Era

 

[BauerAlmeida]

The most important but not the only one.

 

[GabeT]

Once again you're wrong as usual. I've alway maintained that Djokovic inflated in the CIE since the NextGen mug from the 90s born players failed to take over the tour

Lol, no. You were fine with the results until Fed got left behind.


That’s ok, you are a fan, not an analyst. Happens to all fans, we want our favorite to win. As you yourself said the holy grail of tennis is the slam race. Novak won it

 

[RaulRamirez]

Oy...again?
To the overall question, no, slams are not the only metric.
Mythical "goat" analysis is the same, to me, as if comparing the 22nd and 23rd best players of all-time. Slams are the single most important category, perhaps followed by time at #1.

 

[nolefam_2024]

I like CIE is used as if it is some official objective term used by the ATP and ITF, instead of it being a coping mechanism by a small corner of the fans on the internet.

CIE - Coping Immeasurably Era

Cie

Coping mechanism by losers

 

[messiahrobins]

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

Love has nothing to do with it. However you are right that most successful doesnt mean greatest. Thats the case in every sport.