Slam count is the only and true indicator of GOAT

KineticChain

Hall of Fame
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count

It's easy to prove you wrong. Laver has 11 slams and is considered on the same level as Federer.

Borg has 11, but he is considered on the same level as Nadal and Sampras. That is with reasonable people who are historians and experts and didn't start to watch tennis in 2006.

Then, I can easily prove that distribution of slams has nothing to do with strength of an era. You can win more titles in stronger era. You can win less titles in weaker era. Everything is possible.

Some people can't even be nr.1 in juniors. Federer is better in the pros than some people are in juniors. And competition there is weaker and yet Federer is better when competition is stronger.

So, distribution doesn't mean anything.
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Nal's nine FOs show it was a weak clay era.

The moment a real competitor stood up, he buckled and showed his back.

:D
Not the moment a real competitor stood up, because three other competitors could have taken him out this year. It is more like the moment the easiest way to enhance stamina with EPO doping is no longer doable...
 

Camilio Pascual

Hall of Fame
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count
The competitiveness level is higher when many different players win Slams. Most analysts would consider this to be an indication of a strong era in a sport. Take baseball when the Yankees dominated the World Series for a couple of decades. That was a weak era with many perennially hapless teams.
The NFL tries very hard with scheduling and drafting policies and practices to help many different teams get to the Super Bowl as opposed to just a few teams.
The times during which Martina and Chrissie dominated had a very low competitiveness level, which many people complained about.
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
Not the moment a real competitor stood up, because three other competitors could have taken him out this year. It is more like the moment the easiest way to enhance stamina with EPO doping is no longer doable...

Or maybe because he is declining plain and simple.
This year, Ferrer who is supposed to be a doper too is playing as good as he used to. How do you explain that?
 

KG1965

Legend
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count

From 1990 to 2015 the count slams one true indicator of goat is .....a joke . There are YEC , Master100 , number one ATP .

Before 1990 ... joke joke joke joke a million jokes ....
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
Or maybe because he is declining plain and simple.
This year, Ferrer who is supposed to be a doper too is playing as good as he used to. How do you explain that?
Ferrer's superior stamina is still there. At least we know he was not doping with the methods that the biological passport is able to detect. I think some people owe him an appology.

Rafa's case is suspicious because he lost exactly the edge which EPO and blood doping can help an athlete to gain. I don't buy the natural decline story because he declines way too much. Look at Fed's 2012 to 2013, Nadal's 2015 decline is a much bigger disaster. Don't forget in 2015 Nadal has been injury free so a rebound is supposed to be expected (much like Fed's 2014 rebound from 2013's back problem).
 

tacou

G.O.A.T.
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count

The proof you are wrong is the fact you had to start this thread. The criteria will always be subjective and different people will have different opinions.

I think major count is the primary talking point and a gap as small as 2 major titles is enough to end most player-to-player discussions for me.

But it isn't for others and there you have it
 

tennis_commentator

Hall of Fame
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count

I agree, I only count the rankings/masters/Olympics/WTFs if 2 players have the same number of slams.
And before I get to any of those factors I look at who has the Career Grand Slam.

Agassi and Djokovic both have 8 slams.
But we don't need to look at the rankings/masters/Olympics/WTFs to separate them, because we can see Agassi has the Career Grand Slam.
 

Tenez101

Banned
A lot of Fed's wins were against slam virgins and really not players of champion caliber. Let's just admit it and move on.
 

giggc

New User
of course slam counts because the more u won, either you are dominant in one year or you are so good that you can keep winning over years.
 

timnz

Legend
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count

I disagree. The tennis year is longer than just 8 weeks. The tennis greats should be evaluated on a mix of their achievements of which slam wins are weighted the most highly. SEason end finals, slam runner-ups, Masters 1000 etc should be included (obviously weighted differently than slams, but still included)
 

Fiji

Legend
Ferrer's superior stamina is still there. At least we know he was not doping with the methods that the biological passport is able to detect. I think some people owe him an appology.

Rafa's case is suspicious because he lost exactly the edge which EPO and blood doping can help an athlete to gain. I don't buy the natural decline story because he declines way too much. Look at Fed's 2012 to 2013, Nadal's 2015 decline is a much bigger disaster. Don't forget in 2015 Nadal has been injury free so a rebound is supposed to be expected (much like Fed's 2014 rebound from 2013's back problem).

I concur.....
 

Arafel

Professional
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count

OK. Jimmy Connors won the Australian in 74, was runner-up in 75, and then never played it again because it wasn't considered an important tournament. Borg played Australia once, and never during the five years that he won Wimbledon, where he surely would have been a favorite. Almost every top player of the 70s skipped multiple French Opens because again it wasn't that important a tournament.

Further, Chris Evert, who went 189-1 on clay over an eight year stretch, skipped three consecutive French Opens at a time when she would have been a lock to win it, preferring instead to play WTT, which offered more money. She also didn't play the Australian for most of the 70s (she played it once, in 74).

Slam counts can be used to help measure champions in the same era, where the tournaments are valued equally, but not to compare champions from different eras, because it devalues past accomplishments when certain Slams either weren't important, or the best players were banned from playing them because they were professionals and the Slams were only open to amateurs.

Put it this way: is there any way Chris Evert wouldn't have as many Slams as Margaret Court if she had been playing the Australian during her entire career, and hadn't missed the French for three years straight when it was a second-tier tournament. Would Jimmy Connors not likely have more Slams if he had played the Australian throughout his career, or the U.S. Open had been played on hard courts from 75 on instead of clay? Would Borg not have more Slams if he had cared about the Australian one iota?
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Slam counts can be used to help measure champions in the same era, where the tournaments are valued equally, but not to compare champions from different eras, because it devalues past accomplishments when certain Slams either weren't important, or the best players were banned from playing them because they were professionals and the Slams were only open to amateurs.
Exactly. But since the 90s slams have been the number one metric, and there is no getting around that. Unless two players have the same number of slams (Pete and Rafa) slam count is going to determine legacy.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
A lot of Fed's wins were against slam virgins and really not players of champion caliber. Let's just admit it and move on.
By your logic, Nadal's FO wins against Roger should also not count. Roger was too weak against Nads on clay, esp at RG.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
A lot of Fed's wins were against slam virgins and really not players of champion caliber. Let's just admit it and move on.

Exactly. Just look at FO 2015. Djokovic was so lucky to get a "basically a slam virgin" (in only his 2nd slam final) to easily win his first FO and Career slam...
...
...
...

Oh wait :oops:
 

Camilio Pascual

Hall of Fame
Put it this way: is there any way Chris Evert wouldn't have as many Slams as Margaret Court if she had been playing the Australian during her entire career, and hadn't missed the French for three years straight when it was a second-tier tournament.

Yes, I can think of 3 ways.
1. She might not have won these tournaments, anyway.
2. She wins some of these tournaments, but there is a physical and mental cost to these efforts and maybe she is not as fresh at Wimby or the U.S. Open, resulting in her losing a tournament or two that she did win.
3. There is always a risk of injury. She twists her ankle badly at Oz and can't play at all for 6 months and doesn't win a Slam for 2 years because she's rusty from lack of practice.
 

LETitBE

Hall of Fame
I still cannot believe how little weight the WTF carries in the discussion.It really is the 5th major with no real "luck of the draw" or bad weather to throw a spanner in the works.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Prove me wrong. a weak era is an era where many different players win slams. on and off periods of playing greatly. this fact wil only change if someone surpasses feders count

marget who?

Who the heck are Feder and Marget ?

LOL. Everyone is still falling for this facetious thread.

i see alot of flib flabbin flippity floppity but no proof. feddurer is goat
LOOL.
 
Top