The Big 3 are in a race that no one else was running.

#52
Well, Emerson stayed in the amateur tour, and grabbed 12 slams... But no one really thought Emerson's mark was of huge significance - precisely because it was a split field, and others such as Laver or Rosewall were arguably better players.
Your example of Emerson's success supports what I said.
 
#54
Sure sure...but if it was - Fed with 22, Nad with 18 and Djo with 20 you would consider an option! LOL We are starting to sing these "No matter who amongst the three is greatest" only recently, when Djokovic started to showing signs of breaking all sort of Federer's records! (With the exception of maybe multiple consecutive ones!)...So now this argument, that no matter who is the GOAT amongst the three is suddenly valid! HAHA You are all exposed with your "I want to sit on both chairs with one butt" crap!...I call people like you - a prostitute with no principles! I'd rather show respect to a person, who knows who he routes for and why, than to a person who tries hard to be a fan of everyone, but rather coming out as someone incredibly fake and non genuine! (Why?! Because no one is ever a defnite fan of EVERYONE! EVERYONE got their favorite, that they will route for no matter, who he plays against! Simple as that! Anyone, who tries to argue with that - just fooling him/herself! And i have no respect for such people...))...at least with Djoker haters and Fedal fans i get it...with the likes of you - i don't, cuz you want to act like some smartass shady chinese politician, who smiles at your face and shakes your hand on camera, but planning thousands of ways to invade your country in his head...
You better slay. Exactly what ive been saying. Even though they didn't see it, it would have been far better for Nadal to equal or pass Fed bc they'd still have arguments like WTF and weeks at #1, but noooooooo they wanted to be evil and root for Ultron. Ok, cool.... now he's going to smash Fed's record and they won't have a thing they can throw at Djokovic to say he's not better, and im glad. Keep rooting for Djokovic, it's what they get :D all hail your Serbian conqueror ;)

 
#55
The problem billing the Big 3 as the greatest 3 players of the OE is that you seldom have 2 let alone 3 players legitimately dominate at the same time.

Federer dominated like nobody before him from 04-07 then had 09 with Nadal on the sidelines as the next in line. Nadal has one 3 Slam season in 2010 then is beaten in 2 of those 3 finals the following year by his main rival Djokovic who gets a 3 slam season in 2011. Then Novak does it again in 2015 in an arguably weaker field now with only Federer from the previous generation contending but gets 4 in a row first time since 69. Then his recent comeback in 2018-19 wherein his main rival Nadal is seemingly contending while Federer is seemingly out after he got 3 Slams in Novak's absence.

And in all of this, Fed was the guy who won 5 in a row at the USO and Wimbledon whereas Djokovic has 2 consecutive Wimbledons and the 2-3 in 6 years at Australia. Nadal meanwhile has never defended a Slam outside the French where he's gone 4-5-2 now.

Only Federer comes out of that heap as a GOAT contender really, but Novak's penchant for winning all 4 Slams and right now possibly getting Calendar Slam puts him in the conversation undoubtedly.

Nadal is nowhere near these guys in proper context (never defending a non-French Slam is one thing) and why I have him behind Borg and Sampras.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
#56
I agree and it's an argument that will never be settled anyway,why is it so important to have a GOAT? They are the 3 greatest players ever,that's enough isn't it? I can't imagine even in a scenario where Djokovic finishes on 22 slams,Fed 20 and Nadal 18 that Djokovic will be a unanimous pick. They're just the 3 greatest,that's it...
Is djokovic going to win 7 grand slam with more than 32 years?
I do not think so.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
#57
the most important factor in determining the goat is the number of slams at the end of their careers...the op and anyone else can make any excuse and every excuse in the book as to why the previous generations did not reach the heights of federer, nadal and djokovic, but the truth is that no other players in history have been this good or this dominant...the next 2 or 3 years are going to determine the greatest tennis player of all time, and in my opinion it's without a doubt the most compelling storyline in all of sports...my money is still on my man fed, but djokovic is coming like a freight train at the moment and nadal could still possibly win 2 or 3 more french open titles...in my opinion fed needs 2 more slams to seal the deal and despite what happened in the 4th round of australia I think he will still win the 2 more slams that he needs to seal the deal...novak is the biggest threat to fed after what happened in that final, and if he wins roland garros it's going to go down to the wire...my prediction has changed after australia...at the end of these greats careers i'm going with this prediction:

federer- 22
djokovic- 21
nadal- 20
bad prediction.
 
#58
Only Federer comes out of that heap as a GOAT contender really

Nadal is nowhere near these guys in proper context (never defending a non-French Slam is one thing) and why I have him behind Borg and Sampras.
Indeed, Nadal was so nowhere near Federer he only managed to scrape 9 slam wins out of 12 against him.
 
#59
It might make good copy in the sports pages and lead to heated debate on here, but at some point even the most fanatical worshippers of the Big 3 are going to have to realise that the slam race has NO significance in tennis history.

None.

It is mostly an invention of the 21st Century. The fact that three players in one generation have won 15+ slams is proof that the focus of the sport has entirely altered in the past two decades. The amateur/pro split made reaching double figures almost impossible and the greats of the 70s and early 80s thought so little of the slam count they didn't even travel to Australia.

It'll be fun to see who eventually wins this little race (I suspect it will be Djokovic) but it is a race none of the other all-time greats were even attempting to run.
That's easy to say when you have no idea what they were chasing, and when they have no chance to improve on the number they achieved. The fact is, slams have always been the measure of accomplishment in tennis.
 
#61
So Emerson was everyone's GOAT right? LOL!!!
Probably not, certainly not Emmo himself. But Mary Carillo did make a very big deal about Sampras tying and breaking Emerson's slam total record in 1999-2000.

Lots of persons heard this and assumed it was thus the only thing that mattered.
 

mmk

Hall of Fame
#62
Next thread from OP - "Global warming is a race that no one else was running. The human race has NO significance in the universe's history."
Well, hard to argue with that part. Humans make up less than 1.5x10^-70% of the observable universe. And we haven't really done anything all that noteworthy with respect to the universe.
 
#65
You are right. I predict by 2050 there will be atleast 6 players with 20+ slams. Or atleast 6 unless one of Djokovic or Nadal doesnt reach 20 (I suspect both reach atleast 20).

By the end of the century Sampras will easily be out of the top 10 in slams.
 
#66
It is mostly an invention of the 21st Century. The fact that three players in one generation have won 15+ slams is proof that the focus of the sport has entirely altered in the past two decades. The amateur/pro split made reaching double figures almost impossible and the greats of the 70s and early 80s thought so little of the slam count they didn't even travel to Australia.
I would partially agree with this statement. Its true "slam count" had less significance in the 70s/early-80s, but its not an invention of the 21st century. We had ATG's already winning AO to supplement their slam counts (Edberg, Wilander) by the mid-80s and by 1990, we had a fully structured tour with the 4 grandslams being considered the prime events, and everyone playing to peak at those events. It was Sampras himself who started touting the slam race as THE FACTOR in regards to greatness in the late-90s. So when looking at the open era, I think its perfectly reasonable to hold players like Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Wilander to the slam standard.

Now for 70s-early 80s ATGs, yes I agree its not reasonable to hold them to the same standard and go purely based on the slam count when assessing greatness. The thing is though, Federer has pretty much surpassed all of them even going by standards suited for their era.

Wimbledon+USO (the two tournaments everyone geared up for and played in that era) we have:

Federer: 13
Connors: 7
McEnroe: 7
Borg: 5
Lendl: 3

#1 ranking (probably the best way to compare across eras):

Fed: 310 weeks, 5 YE #1
Connors: 270 weeks, 3-6 YE #1 (but usually agreed as 3: 74, 76, 82, arguable: 75, 77, 78)
Lendl: 268 weeks, 3-5 YE #1 (but usually agreed as 3: 85, 86, 87, arguable: 89, 90)
McEnroe: 170 weeks, 3-4 YE #1 ((but usually agreed as 3: 81, 83, 84, arguable: 82)
Borg: 109 weeks, 2-4 YE #1 (but usually agreed as 3: 78, 79, 80. arguable: 77)

Credit for both YEC titles as majors to old greats to compensate for not always playing in AO/FO:

Fed: 20
Lendl: 15
McEnroe: 15
Borg: 14
Connors: 11

By the end of this year, Djokovic will likely have surpassed all of the 70s/80s ATGs in these metrics as well. Given that, I am very comfortable rating Djok/Fed above all of them. Nadal lags behind a bit in weeks #1 and Wimb+USO, but given he is still in the ballpark despite doing this in the same era as Djok/Fed AND also utterly dominated them on clay, I am good with saying they are the 3 greatest players in the open era.

Now if we bring pre-open era into the equation, then that is a different question. I think Gonzales and Laver both have valid arguments for GOAT that the current Big 3 will likely not be able to squelch completely.
 
#67
No it doesn't. Winners of multiple amateur slams almost all switched to playing pro. The ability to win multiple slams translated in almost every case to a desire to earn money legitimately. Emerson was a very rare exception.
You're warping the story now. The original claim was that the amateur/pro era made it harder for people to win majors when Emerson shows perfectly that the opposite is true. The motivation to seek more money by playing the pros is irrelevant to the point about ability. Emerson's slam total benefited greatly by the fact that many of the best players were absent when he was winning those majors - no less than if suddenly the French Open was open to everyone except Spanish players. Those who win it would be getting an easier ride.
 
#68
You're warping the story now. The original claim was that the amateur/pro era made it harder for people to win majors when Emerson shows perfectly that the opposite is true. The motivation to seek more money by playing the pros is irrelevant to the point about ability. Emerson's slam total benefited greatly by the fact that many of the best players were absent when he was winning those majors - no less than if suddenly the French Open was open to everyone except Spanish players. Those who win it would be getting an easier ride.
Thing is, a large majority of the players who'd begin winning many (amateur) slams would quickly switch to pro - because they'd have very little incentive to stay amateur. And once you've switched, you can't go back to slams as amateur.

Emerson is an exception, one of the few players who remained an amateur despite the possibility to become a pro and be successful there.

Yes, it'd have been easier to win a huge lot of slams, if a great player really wanted to (and thus stayed an amateur, instead of switching pro like most, thus rampaging a weaker field). That would have been at the expense of revenue, and even of prestige as the pro tour was valued higher during this era. Besides, during these days, huge amateur slams count wasn't a prestigious achievement (and for good reason). So, no sane "GOAT contender" would do such a thing...

This is a clear and argued reason why amateur slams count is not, and cannot be used to rank greatness - for these players who were active during the amateurs vs. pros years.
 
#70
You're warping the story now. The original claim was that the amateur/pro era made it harder for people to win majors when Emerson shows perfectly that the opposite is true. The motivation to seek more money by playing the pros is irrelevant to the point about ability. Emerson's slam total benefited greatly by the fact that many of the best players were absent when he was winning those majors - no less than if suddenly the French Open was open to everyone except Spanish players. Those who win it would be getting an easier ride.
I'm sorry. I try to debate issues in an even-handed way but you clearly don't have the first clue about how tennis used to work in the pre-Open era.
 

Rago

Hall of Fame
#71
Well, hard to argue with that part. Humans make up less than 1.5x10^-70% of the observable universe. And we haven't really done anything all that noteworthy with respect to the universe.
Point taken and hard to disagree with that as you said.

I just find it ironic that OP is in the same boat as yourself (or pretends to be and claims to be rational) but goes on a rampage to create countless disguised threads and posts (agendas of which are clear as daylight to most of the people on the forum) discrediting a certain player whilst simultaneously discussing the "GOAT" debate.

We are ALL biased to some extent (based on experience) but OP takes the cake in this regard (whilst cherry picking countless numbers and pretending to be objective as if his babble was more valid). Hilarious.
 
#72
Rafa: can I ask you a weird question, ¿por favor?
Novak: depends on how you ask it but ok
Rafa: i-i was wondering how you tell someone you like them
Novak: I would just go tell them directly that I like them
Rafa: eyes light up ¿R-realmente? Well Nole, if you like someone you should really go up to them and tell them you like them, ¿no?

Novak: I'm telling him right now.
 
Top