Ranking these arguments for GOAT/BOATness

[Oceans II]

The strength of these following arguments.

- Simple statistics (number of slams, masters, most ATP points in a season, DCGS, etc)
- More detailed statistics (wins/win % vs top 3/5/10, big 3/4, etc)
- Elo rating (e.g., grand slams adjusted by difficulty)
- Direct personal quotes from players
- Expert/player opinion
- From my eye test

Discuss.

 

[Hypo Crisis]

Idk what direct personal quotes from players mean, but I would put that only in front of eye test.
More detailed stats if players are too close comes first, if not... simple stat.
Elo rating is more detailed stat I presume.

 

[Biotic]

PETEness above all else

 

[Oceans II]

Idk what direct personal quotes from players mean, but I would put that only in front of eye test.
More detailed stats if players are too close comes first, if not... simple stat.
Elo rating is more detailed stat I presume.

Apologies for the lack of clarity. Say if we were discussing a player's performance, words from that player on their own performance as he/she know themselves the best rather than from someone else.

 

[TripleATeam]

The strength of these following arguments.

- Simple statistics (number of slams, masters, most ATP points in a season, DCGS, etc)
- More detailed statistics (wins/win % vs top 3/5/10, big 3/4, etc)
- Elo rating (e.g., grand slams adjusted by difficulty)
- Direct personal quotes from players
- Expert/player opinion
- From my eye test

Discuss.

1. Simple statistics (commonly used measuring stick, easy to see who's ahead. Little nuance necessary, can let numbers do the talking)
2. Detailed statistics (which ones get pulled can be prone to bias, and when adding stipulations to stats you can often introduce bias simply by choosing a particular stat that correlates with another - "Nadal has more natural surface slams, so he's better on both natural surfaces than Federer is." True statement, but not a true conclusion.
3. Direct personal quotes from players about what they value most (specifically from those most likely to be in the running to be the greatest) - the players know what they're chasing. If there's a consensus, we should value it. (EDIT: upon seeing that "direct quotes" means things like "I was at my best last year", then I value this as just above eye test. Half of tennis (or more) is PR. Few people desire to say "my best days are behind me. I'm washed up and the only thing I have on my previous self is experience." Not to mention sometimes people contradict themselves. I do not value this highly.)
4. Expert/player opinion - same as above but one step removed because experts.
5. Elo rating - math again, but a lot of the nuance and specific achievement is reduced to a single number of "goodness" which is strange for a sport like tennis that plays on multiple surfaces, and each surface/ball type plays somewhat differently than even similar tournaments.
6. Eye test - literally all bias.

 

[GoatNo1]

the first two on your list.
other is irrelevant

 

[Djokovic_is_the_best#1]

The first 2 on your lists are facts and objective approach. Everything else is subjective and more of an opinion.

 

[Barton]

Accomplishments, dominance and to an extent level for GOATness so Djokovic, Laver or Pancho.

Pure level for BOATness so Hoad aka the God of tennis.

@Lleytonstation agrees even though he doesn't know me.

 

[Lleytonstation]

Accomplishments, dominance and to an extent level for GOATness so Djokovic, Laver or Pancho.

Pure level for BOATness so Hoad aka the God of tennis.

@Lleytonstation agrees even though he doesn't know me.

or Pancho.

Pancho needs to stay where he belongs... club tennis section. New racket, new strings, and latest training and he wouldn't crack the top 100. To put Djoker (a tennis player) in with Pancho (Tea & Sandwiches Era) is absurd.

 

[TMF]

Sure if you believe McDonald is the most delicious hamburger in the world

 

[GabeT]

Eye test is mostly useless. We know that because if posters actually had the ability to judge levels and predict outcomes based on just watching players this ability would show up elsewhere (ie, they’d be able to predict real matches)


Comparing over time is difficult in any sport but is particularly difficult in a sport that has changed so much as tennis. Every so often I rewatch a match or highlights from the Borg/Jmac era (which brings me back to my younger years) and they look so slow compared to today. But each one of us will have different preferences

ultimately we can never know who is the best ever, only who won the most of comparable tournaments