Tennis Channel - The 100 GOAT : 1, Roger Federer. 2, Rod Laver. 5, Pete Sampras.

Well in that case why are there any women on the list. In the event one is being fair to the realistic differences in strength and athleticsm from being an elite man to an elite women, which they must be attempting to be otherwise there is no point of making a unisex list, Graf should be #1 over Laver and Federer, and all others. Her career far trumps everyone else. Laver has the 3 Grand Slams to her 1, but even that isnt enough to overcome Graf's many other advantages.

One cannot put men and women in the same list of greatest players ever. Women chase their own history and records, men chase their own history and records on their tour.
 

Kenshin

Semi-Pro
Well in that case why are there any women on the list. In the event one is being fair to the realistic differences in strength and athleticsm from being an elite man to an elite women, which they must be attempting to be otherwise there is no point of making a unisex list, Graf should be #1 over Laver and Federer, and all others. Her career far trumps everyone else. Laver has the 3 Grand Slams to her 1, but even that isnt enough to overcome Graf's many other advantages.

I like reading your posts because many of your posts seems fair and balanced but I think it is better to separate men's and woman's ranking list because it gets too compicated. Even you separate men's and woman's ranking we are still having a debate who is better than who.
 

granddog29

Banned
One cannot put men and women in the same list of greatest players ever. Women chase their own history and records, men chase their own history and records on their tour.

I agree. They should have had seperate lists and not be compared. Since they chose not to though Graf should have been #1 (even though I like Laver far more than Graf).
 

bullfan

Legend
I think that it was purposefully done to ensure viewers watch to see where their faves landed. Had it been separated into 2 different groups, there may not have been as much interest in both series. Personally, I liked that they mixed it up.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
I already gave you an explanation for him and will happily do it again:

Budge is highly elevated by his Grand Slam. Without it he would barely be top 20 all time, and might even be outside the top 20, and with it he is generally seen around 8th all time. The Grand Slam is bar none the most important achievement in tennis but Budge has not achieved enough to be at the very top even with the Grand Slam. Many think Vines was even the best player of that decade, not Budge, and Budge only came up to his level in 38-39 (yet Budge is ranked much higher than Vines by most, again the importance of the Grand Slam).

Laver though has easily achieved enough other great things:

-World #1 for 7 or 8 years straight, longer than Sampras and much longer than Federer.

-11 slams despite being barred from official slam tournaments for 5 years right in his prime from ages 24-29. Something Sampras, Federer, or Nadal would have likely never come close to accomplishing under the same conditions.

-144 tournament titles, far above the Open Era marks of Connors and Lendl, and about double those of Sampras, Federer, and Nadal.

-He actually achieved the Grand Slam more than once no matter how you look at it.


Laver could easily be called GOAT even without his Grand Slams, but with it, it slams the door completely shut on anyone else as there is other SERIOUS GOAT candidate who even achieved.




Hypocrite TMF is the last one who can accuse others of inconsistency. He gives Federer the Australian Open GOAT due to more finals than Agassi and Djokovic, but then gives Federer the U.S Open GOAT despite Sampras having 2 more finals than Federer has. He says Federer's longevity at Wimbledon (7 titles in 9 years/10 Wimledons) is a reason he is better than Sampras (7 titles in 7 years/8 Wimbledons) despite Sampras's greater dominance in a shorter period, but then says Sampras winning U.S Opens over 12 years/13 U.S Opens is an inferior achievement to Federer winning 5 in a row, but then making one more final, and never another one before or since.

Federer is considered the greatest grass court player of all time. At the end of 2012, compare him to Sampras at the exact same age, Roger:

*have more grass titles
*more finals
*better win/loss record at Wimbledon
*more dominant-faced fewer 5 setters
*won more matches in 3 sets despite facing more top 10 players

Federer doesn't need the 5 consecutive Wimbledon to his credit to top Sampras. He simply has better numbers.

Top 10 greatest grass court player:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. JMac
5. Becker
6. Laver
7. Connors
8. Edberg
9. Nadal
10. Renshaw
http://www.rankopedia.com/Best-grass-court-tennis-player-ever-(male)/Step1/2869/.htm



Top AO performers:
1. Federer
2. Nole
3. Agassi

While Nole has 3 consecutive wins, but he lacks in other areas. Fed won both in different surfaces, won the AO without dropping a set(only Rosewall has done it), and has an additional final.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
No, but you're not getting it:

THUNDERVOLLEY said that whoever wins the CYGS is GOAT, whoever does not, is not GOAT. There are no considerations given to other achievements. He ranked Graf as GOAT at the end of 1988 when she only had 5 slams, because she'd won the CYGS in 1988.

Thus, by his own logic, Budge and Laver should be co-GOATs on the men's side. Yet, he only has Laver there.

I'm well aware of why Budge, in reality, is considered well below Laver.

However, the onus is on TV to explain why, by his logic, Budge is not GOAT.

Using that theory one must accept the following players as GOAT:

1. Don Budge 1938
2. Maureen Connolly 1953
3. Rod Laver 1962 and 1969
4. Margaret Smith Court 1970
5. Steffi Graf 1988


The rest of the players in the past 100 years are excluded from goat because the lack of CYGS.
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Federer is considered the greatest grass court player of all time. At the end of 2012, compare him to Sampras at the exact same age, Roger:

*have more grass titles
*more finals
*better win/loss record at Wimbledon
*more dominant-faced fewer 5 setters
*won more matches in 3 sets despite facing more top 10 players

Federer doesn't need the 5 consecutive Wimbledon to his credit to top Sampras. He simply has better numbers.

Top 10 greatest grass court player:

1. Federer
2. Sampras
3. Borg
4. JMac
5. Becker
6. Laver
7. Connors
8. Edberg
9. Nadal
10. Renshaw
http://www.rankopedia.com/Best-grass-court-tennis-player-ever-(male)/Step1/2869/.htm



Top AO performers:
1. Federer
2. Nole
3. Agassi

While Nole has 3 consecutive wins, but he lacks in other areas. Fed won both in different surfaces, won the AO without dropping a set(only Rosewall has done it), and has an additional final.

TMF, Grass courters: Laver 6th and Rosewall excluded is clueless.
 

AngieB

Banned
Helen Wills Moody #29 and Margaret Court #9 and Serena outside the top 10. Lord Jesus and Mary in heaven. Did some production assistant born in 1987 make this list?

AngieB
 
Last edited:

AngieB

Banned
Steffi Graf = Tragedy of Seles.

Margret Court = Too old era.


??
When assessing tennis history, there is no such thing as "too old" or "tragedy" exclusions. Advice to younger fans in tennis, the sport of tennis wasn't created last decade. Take this opportunity to educate yourselves about the sport.

AngieB
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
When assessing tennis history, there is no such thing as "too old" or "tragedy" exclusions. Advice to younger fans in tennis, the sport of tennis wasn't created last decade. Take this opportunity to educate yourselves about the sport.

Do not hold your breath on that one; they believe the Tennis Channel and Wikipedia are all the "Tennis EDU" they need, which leads to threads where a player of questionable status is turned into a false "god" figure.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
YOU might be rational and beieve that, but this forum is now hosting several threads where Nadal at 17--or more majors will still not be the GOAT in their eyes.

Your false "God" Nadal will never be the GOAT. He does not a CYGS...Laver has two.

Laver >>> Nadal. Deal with it.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
Any list that has Emerson above Gonzales and Kramer loses all credibility.

And Federer above Graf!

Graf beats Federer in nearly every category :confused:
CYGGS (1) 1988
Majors won (22) in 31 finals
Titles (107)
Weeks at #1 (377)
8x YE #1
2x Fed Cup titles
Dominating rivals
Winning every major at least 4x (7x Wimbledon)
Career matches played (1017)
Career matches won (902)
Overall winning percentage at 902-115 (89%)
10 years in her career with over 90% winning percentage
Longevity (won at least 1 major for 10 consecutive years)

Someone give me one good reason why Federer is above Graf on this list? :?
 
And Federer above Graf!

Graf beats Federer in nearly every category :confused:
CYGGS (1) 1988
Majors won (22) in 31 finals
Titles (107)
Weeks at #1 (377)
8x YE #1
2x Fed Cup titles
Dominating rivals
Winning every major at least 4x (7x Wimbledon)
Career matches played (1017)
Career matches won (902)
Overall winning percentage at 902-115 (89%)
10 years in her career with over 90% winning percentage
Longevity (won at least 1 major for 10 consecutive years)

Someone give me one good reason why Federer is above Graf on this list? :?
11949849671589982655male_symbol_dan_gerhards_01.svg.med.png


and the topic at hand is sports
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
The fact he is male is not a good reason :)

The records and accomplishments of Graf put her in a class of her own - regardless of gender.

The amusing part of Fed defenders' eternal pain is that removing Graf does not move Federer to the GOAT position. He's not Laver, so it is back to his deserved position.
 

Goosehead

Legend
The fact he is male is not a good reason :)

The records and accomplishments of Graf put her in a class of her own - regardless of gender.

it is a good reason, because if Federer played graf Federer would always win..in terms of the best tennis player between the two..Federer is..

but you could argue graf is a better female player in comparison to federers acheivments as a male..like some folk would say 22 slams over 17 slams means graf is goat.

but a Federer v graf match would be federers all day long.
 

Bud

Bionic Poster
it is a good reason, because if Federer played graf Federer would always win..in terms of the best tennis player between the two..Federer is..

but you could argue graf is a better female player in comparison to federers acheivments as a male..like some folk would say 22 slams over 17 slams means graf is goat.

but a Federer v graf match would be federers all day long.

Duh

However, we're talking about their career accomplishments playing their respective genders. If you look at the list, there are women ranked higher than men. So, the list is about gender-specific career achievements. Graf accomplished much more than Federer.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Duh

However, we're talking about their career accomplishments playing their respective genders. If you look at the list, there are women ranked higher than men. So, the list is about gender-specific career achievements. Graf accomplished much more than Federer.

What is your problem ?

Winning the slam in the atp is 10 times harder than winning in the wta. It's no secret that experts value Federer 17 more than Graf 22, including other achievements.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Once again, we see some baseless value applied to the level of effort in sport. No different than false percentages tied to support of a certain player. Pure, unsubstantiated fantasy.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
What is your problem ?

Winning the slam in the atp is 10 times harder than winning in the wta. It's no secret that experts value Federer 17 more than Graf 22, including other achievements.

Some are blinded by Fed Hatred. You can't do much about it. They will bring everyone from Tilden, Rosewall to Taylor Townsend and Eugenie Bouchard into the discussion and find a way to discredit Fed.

You cannot fault them. If a person you hate is so insanely great, it does hurt ego really really bad.
 

Safinator_1

Professional
It is silly to rank men and women players together, it cannot be measured one is from x and one is from y.

There should only be 1 list for men and 1 for women, any idea when they will release a new list as obviously this one is outdated.
 

Finisterre

New User
Debating about Rivalry Sampras-Agassi i think Agassi is the better player from the baseline..Agassi is a pure ball striker with better timing..He hit the ball very early on the rise..i think agassi backhand is better too..what do you think about?
 

ripitup

Banned
Debating about Rivalry Sampras-Agassi i think Agassi is the better player from the baseline..Agassi is a pure ball striker with better timing..He hit the ball very early on the rise..i think agassi backhand is better too..what do you think about?

Better from the baseline? Probably. Sampras though is by far the better overall player. Light years better 1st and 2nd serve, light years better overall athlete, far better mover, way better at the net, way better transitioning to the net, a better returner than Agassi is a server (and likewise a better server than Agassi is a returner), and who can rally with and even beat Agassi at his own baseline game too. Agassi in fact was petrified of getting into forehand rallies with Sampras, which means even in his own domain, his own options became limited.
 

Finisterre

New User
Better from the baseline? Probably. Sampras though is by far the better overall player. Light years better 1st and 2nd serve, light years better overall athlete, far better mover, way better at the net, way better transitioning to the net, a better returner than Agassi is a server (and likewise a better server than Agassi is a returner), and who can rally with and even beat Agassi at his own baseline game too. Agassi in fact was petrified of getting into forehand rallies with Sampras, which means even in his own domain, his own options became limited.

yes better overall player but i've this insane belief that Sampras forehand nowdays doesn't have the same efficacy that had at the time..Do you think Sampras forehand would schocked Nadal on the rally?On the contrary i think Agassi forehand with incredible angle and hitting clean would damaged Nadal more..Pure power of the sampras forehand or Agassi angles with unpredictable sense of direction versus Nadal?
i think Nadal forehand is devstating weapon more than forehand of Agassi or sampras..
What do you think man?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Better from the baseline? Probably. Sampras though is by far the better overall player. Light years better 1st and 2nd serve, light years better overall athlete, far better mover, way better at the net, way better transitioning to the net, a better returner than Agassi is a server (and likewise a better server than Agassi is a returner), and who can rally with and even beat Agassi at his own baseline game too. Agassi in fact was petrified of getting into forehand rallies with Sampras, which means even in his own domain, his own options became limited.

lol, Nadalagassi, even after 8-9 years or so, haven't you given up on the delusion that agassi was wait, 'petrified', of sampras' FH ? :lol:

And agassi won the majority of the baseline battles with sampras, reality. Even in matches like 95 USO which sampras won.

Just because sampras won some crucial, spectacular points from the baseline doesn't mean he wasn't clearly inferior to agassi from the baseline.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
lol, Nadalagassi, even after 8-9 years or so, haven't you given up on the delusion that agassi was wait, 'petrified', of sampras' FH ? :lol:

And agassi won the majority of the baseline battles with sampras, reality. Even in matches like 95 USO which sampras won.

Just because sampras won some crucial, spectacular points from the baseline doesn't mean he wasn't clearly inferior to agassi from the baseline.

If Agassi isn't better than Sampras from the baseline then how does he managed to beat him 14 times. I think he believe Agassi out serve and out volley Sampras are the reasons why he beat him 14 times. Haha
 

Finisterre

New User
yes better overall player but i've this insane belief that Sampras forehand nowdays doesn't have the same efficacy that had at the time..Do you think Sampras forehand would schocked Nadal on the rally?On the contrary i think Agassi forehand with incredible angle and hitting clean would damaged Nadal more..Pure power of the sampras forehand or Agassi angles with unpredictable sense of direction versus Nadal?
i think Nadal forehand is devstating weapon more than forehand of Agassi or sampras..
What do you think man?
 
Top