The GOAT..and your definition of it.

saram

saram

Legend
Another thread has come up with the question of who is the GOAT. My intent here is not to name the GOAT, but I am curious as to your definition of the GOAT and what it takes to claim that title. There are so many things to consider:

Titles
Grand Slams
Olympic Gold medals
Weeks at #1
Competition/playing field
Time in which the player won the titles/slams
length of career
Ability to play on multiple surfaces and dominate
etc.
etc.
etc.

I think that if Roger didn't have Rafa to contend with on clay, Roger would have 14 or 15 GS titles by now and those that only look at GS's would consider Roger the GOAT. But, so many in the past had to contend with the "Rafa's" of their time.

As well, so many of us are not in the generation of watching Laver dominate his playing field and were only around to see the end of the Bjorg era (myself included). Thus, the problem for me is I have only seen one clip of Laver on youtube. And, with that, do not have the ability to make an educated claim on the GOAT.

What are your thoughts? What does it take in your mind to be the GOAT. And, is there even a possible way to compare different generations when considering GOAT status?

All comments welcome and appreciated....
 
The GOAT will always remain a matter of opinion, you can't really compare, different years, different competitors etc.
 
Saram ~

I have participated on a number of Tennis Forums probably since their inception and of course numerous discussions on the GOAT and NONE have ever been decided to date. This is the first time in my association of Tennis, that I have not only read & verbally discussed a particular Player such as Roger Federer as being the GOAT but heard numerous Sports Commentators, some not even Tennis Commentators and other Professional Tennis Players, refer to Federer in this light.

Listening to Andre Agassi, John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Bud Collins and even Pete Sampras talk to the camera, holding Federer to this high esteem, is truly a complement to Federer. However, as we are all currently aware, everyone of these adulations are merely a projection of what could possibly come to pass, should Roger Federer continue on the path he is currently traveling.

For those who have read my comments on this Question & Topic, I do not necessarily believe accomplishments alone to be the determining factor. But I wanted to say because I thank for you (Saram) to ask what is our definition of the GOAT, is probably the most intelligent question one could ask about this topic.

I recently watched the Tennis Channel's Special on Andre Agassi, "Between the Lines" and the one consistent comment by all Commentators interviewed in this Special was neither Andre Agassi nor Pete Sampras would have come close to their achievements had it not been for the other. Even Pete said this during his interview, that Andre made him a better player. It was amazing how much respect they had for each other, acknowledging how the other's ability to play the game was one of the single most contributing factors in their need to push harder. Pete Sampras said, "I could have played below what I feel was my best tennis and still get through a tournament but when it was time to play Andre, I knew if I didn't bring my A-game, I was going home.

This is absolutely why Rafael Nadal is so crucial for Roger Federer. Maybe soon Novak Djokovic will gain that level of respect from Roger but doing well in a few tournaments is not enough for everyone to start shaking in their boots just yet. Rafa, is consistent on whatever surface and had he not been in lesser physical condition ala USO, it was probably going to be #1 against #2 in the Finals. Roger said that is what he expected going in had he made it to the finals and that was after his defeat in Montreal. So even though Joko beat Roddick, Nadal & Federer back to back (espalda contra espalda), it still wasn't enough to make Roger feel Joko was a lock for the finals.

In closing, if Roger Federer wants to be considered the Undisputed Greatest Tennis Player of All Times, he needs a strong healthy Rafael Nadal, to keep him sharp & focused. The better Rafa plays, the better Federer will play and then he just might break Pete's record in Majors. But I also think to truly put the question to bed for Roger, he needs the French on his mantel.
 
Last edited:
To be the greatest of all time, you simply have to be better than everyone else who has attempted it. Federer could win 28 slams and still not meet some of the demands people here set for a GOAT, but does that really make Laver better?
 
My definition of the GOAT is that it does not exist and is pointless to debate over it. To many variables between the different tennis generations.
 
saram said:
Another thread has come up with the question of who is the GOAT. My intent here is not to name the GOAT, but I am curious as to your definition of the GOAT and what it takes to claim that title. There are so many things to consider:



I think that if Roger didn't have Rafa to contend with on clay, Roger would have 14 or 15 GS titles by now and those that only look at GS's would consider Roger the GOAT. But, so many in the past had to contend with the "Rafa's" of their time.

As well, so many of us are not in the generation of watching Laver dominate his playing field and were only around to see the end of the Bjorg era (myself included). Thus, the problem for me is I have only seen one clip of Laver on youtube. And, with that, do not have the ability to make an educated claim on the GOAT.

What are your thoughts? What does it take in your mind to be the GOAT. And, is there even a possible way to compare different generations when considering GOAT status?

All comments welcome and appreciated....
Click to expand...

Trying to define the different things people use to determine GOAT status will be just as difficult. Some will say dominance over their respective opponents for a period of time, winning multiple slams, weeks at #1, the Grand Slam, etc. The bottom line is that the criteria will be as subjective as the questions answers.
You might rightly assume that most young people would vote for Federer since they have never seen Sampras or Laver play. You might also assume that much older people would give the nod to Laver or Sampras since they did see them in their primes. The trouble is that the game continues to change in both the rules and equipment. For instance, how well would Sampras or Federer do if they had to serve with one foot planted on the ground when they made contact on the serve?

Though he was before my time, I pick Laver as the GOAT based mostly on his two Grand Slams.
 
In my opinion, the criteria for choosing the GOAT are very subjective. Often, as you may have noticed in the innumerable GOAT threads started by new and experienced members, a favorite GOAT is decided beforehand and criteria are found which will justify that choice. I consider the question "Who is the GOAT?" to be unanswerable. It is also more or less irrelevant to my enjoyment of tennis.

If I were pushed to state who the GOAT is, then I would say with confidence that Martina Navratilova is the greatest tennis player of all time.
 
Last edited:
It's only a speculative exercise for fans and experts, and yet this question has a history of its own. Rankings are integral parts in tennis as a sport; this could explain the attempts to name a greatest of all time list, despite the dramatic changes in the sports history and the poor official record-keeping. Maybe it's the fairest method, to give a short overview about the evolution of the matter. The names, which has been mostly cited for the men, are Laver and Tilden. Before 1950 and even before 1970, Big Bill Tilden was called the best by noted experts like Edgar Joubert, Allison Danzig, Lance Tingay or Harry Hopman. Donald Budge was Nr. 1 for Kramer and Walter Pate (US Davis Cup captain); Jack Kramer himself was called Nr. 1 by Paul Metzler. 50s star Pancho Gonzales was seen as the best by Eugene Scott and Pancho Segura. His rival Lew Hoad was regarded the best for his day by Fred Stolle and Richard Evans. The "doomsday stroke machine" Ken Rosewall got te vote of Robert Geist and Robert Denieau. "Rocket" Rod Laver has gotten many well noted supporters since the 70s, including Dan Maskell, John Barrett, Tony Trabert, Ted Schroeder, John Parsons, Rex Bellamy, Joe McCauley, Gianni Clerici, Wolfgang Lencer, Michel Sutter, Ray Bowers, Vijay Amritaj and just in the last months was confirmed as the greatest by Raymond Lee, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins.
In the early 80s, Bjorn Borg was referred as 'alien' champion, especially by French and European writers like Christian Quidet. The meteoric career of John McEnroe was highly regarded by old doubles champion George Lott. Around 2000, Pete Sampras got the votes of Steve Flink, Jon Wertheim, and - not so clear - by Peter Bodo. Now some of the contemporary writers and commentators, including Cliff Drysdale and Tracy Austin, seem to turn to Federer; some like Jimmy Arias or John McEnroe demand a Grand Slam or a French Open to establish his status.
There were also some important polls: Tilden came on top in an AP poll of 1950 by a wide margin over Budge, Kramer and Cochet. In an experts poll of 1969 still Tilden, Budge and Laver were top three. A large and important bunch of 36 commentators were assembled for a poll of 'Inside Tennis' in 1986, which organized a computer tournament with the help of the ATP computer. Laver won the imaginary final over McEnroe in the fifth set "for his better second serve returns". Norman Giller in 1986 compiled on computer basis a ranking with Laver as the top post WWII player (ahead of Kramer and Borg), and Tilden as the top pre WWII player. In 1998, an ATP poll was conducted for the best ATP professional players from 1973 (invention of the computer ranking) to 1998. Sampras was leading ahead of Borg and McEnroe. End 1999,the AP compiled an expert poll for the greatest player of the century. Laver was again on top, with Sampras, Tilden, Borg and Budge behind him (Graf lead Navratilova by just one point on the womens side). 'Tennis week' under Eugene Scott made several polls, in 1995 Laver was leading Tilden in a consensus vote; in 2006 on 'Tennis week' Federer and Laver had assembled the same points scale.
 
Last edited:
A term popularized by the mainstream media in order to elevate a conteporary player to a level above his peers and past greats and commodify his excellence for strictly corporate interests.
 
To some, the only valued definition of GOAT is...

(Calendar GS x 2) + (Olympic Gold Medal) + (Most GS Titles in History*) + (Semi-Dominant**) + (Male Tennis Player***) = G.O.A.T.

*Minimum of 30 GS.

**Semi-Dominant because people think a person is great if any only if they lose to other people which means that the rest of the "field" is strong. So a GOAT must LOSE in order to be "sufficently dominant" which, IMO, does not make any sense.

***No one seems to think about the female players at all.






To others their GOAT is their own personal choice - no matter how little that person has achieved, i.e. many Nadal/Federer/Agassi/Sampras fans think their own favorite player is the GOAT.
 
Swissv2 said:
To some, the only valued definition of GOAT is...

(Calendar GS x 2) + (Olympic Gold Medal) + (Most GS Titles in History*) + (Semi-Dominant**) + (Male Tennis Player***) = G.O.A.T.

*Minimum of 30 GS.

**Semi-Dominant because people think a person is great if any only if they lose to other people which means that the rest of the "field" is strong. So a GOAT must LOSE in order to be "sufficently dominant" which, IMO, does not make any sense.

***No one seems to think about the female players at all.






To others their GOAT is their own personal choice - no matter how little that person has achieved, i.e. many Nadal/Federer/Agassi/Sampras fans think their own favorite player is the GOAT.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Too many people pondering GOAT status only look at their favorite player. Fortunately for me, I am not the #1 fan of any of the players within questioning of GOAT status. I am a huge fan of Agassi's...and although he has the career slam, the gold medal, and numerous master series titles...I know he is not the GOAT, even considering all of his accomplishments in tennis and within the life surrounding the sport.

My reason for starting the thread is that once a week, if not more frequently, we always see a thread questioning the GOAT. I just wanted to expose a thought process in defining what we would/could commonly agree upon as a criteria for GOAT status and see if any of our nominations thus far live up to that status.

Unfortunately, we can never have a GOAT, and that is what makes tennis so wonderful. In time, Roger will subside, retire, etc. Someone will come along and take his throne and create a new era of tennis.
 
GOAT all too often, for me ;), boils down to a list of titles (most notably GS titles). To me, that is the Greatest Champion Of All Time. When I think GOAT, I think most talented/dominant all-round tennis player. What if a player emerged (seemingly from nowhere) and won every event that he played in for an entire year? All straight 6-0 sets? He'd only have 4 Grand Slam titles ... but, in my mind, I would have no problem declaring him the GOAT.

That said, I have a definition ... but no answer as to who it would be.:D
 
urban said:
It's only a speculative exercise for fans and experts, and yet this question has a history of its own. Rankings are integral parts in tennis as a sport; this could explain the attempts to name a greatest of all time list, despite the dramatic changes in the sports history and the poor official record-keeping. Maybe it's the fairest method, to give a short overview about the evolution of the matter. The names, which has been mostly cited for the men, are Laver and Tilden. Before 1950 and even before 1970, Big Bill Tilden was called the best by noted experts like Edgar Joubert, Allison Danzig, Lance Tingay or Harry Hopman. Donald Budge was Nr. 1 for Kramer and Walter Pate (US Davis Cup captain); Jack Kramer himself was called Nr. 1 by Paul Melzer. 50s star Pancho Gonzales was seen as the best by Eugene Scott and Pancho Segura. His rival Lew Hoad was regarded the best for his day by Fred Stolle and Richard Evans. The "doomsday stroke machine" Ken Rosewall got te vote of Robert Geist and Robert Denieau. "Rocket" Rod Laver has gotten many well noted supporters since the 70s, including Don Maskell, John Barrett, Tony Trabert, Ted Schroeder, John Parsons, Rex Bellamy, Joe McCauley, Gianni Clerici, Wolfgang Lencer, Michel Sutter, and just in the last months was confirmed as the greatest by Raymond Lee, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins.
In the early 80s, Bjorn Borg was referred as 'alien' champion, especially by French and European writers like Christian Quidet. The meteoric career of John McEnroe was highly regarded by old doubles champion George Lott. Around 2000, Pete Sampras got the votes of Steve Flink, Jon Wertheim, and - not so clear - by Peter Bodo. Now some of the contemporary writers and commentators, including Cliff Drysdale and Tracy Austin, seem to turn to Federer; some like Jimmy Arias or John McEnroe demand a Grand Slam or a French Open to establish his status.
There were also some important polls: Tilden came on top in an AP poll of 1950 by a wide margin over Budge, Kramer and Cochet. In an experts poll of 1969 still Tilden, Budge and Laver were top three. A large and important bunch of 36 commentators were assembled for a poll of 'Inside Tennis' in 1986, which organized a computer tournament with the help of the ATP computer. Laver won the imaginary final over McEnroe in the fifth set "for his better second serve returns". Norman Giller in 1986 compiled on computer basis a ranking with Laver as the top post WWII player (ahead of Kramer and Borg), and Tilden as the top pre WWII player. In 1998, an ATP poll was conducted for the best ATP professional players from 1973 (invention of the computer ranking) to 1998. Sampras was leading ahead of Borg and McEnroe. End 1999,the AP compiled an expert poll for the greatest player of the century. Laver was again on top, with Sampras, Tilden, Borg and Budge behind him (Graf lead Navratilova by just one point on the womens side). 'Tennis week' under Eugene Scott made several polls, in 1995 Laver was leading Tilden in a consensus vote; in 2006 on 'Tennis week' Federer and Laver had assembled the same points scale.
Click to expand...

Well Come on Urban, after I read your Post, you had me and then I wondered what's your point here. Good stuff however in terms of Tennis History.

Saram said:
Unfortunately, we can never have a GOAT, and that is what makes tennis so wonderful. In time, Roger will subside, retire, etc. Someone will come along and take his throne and create a new era of tennis.
Click to expand...

I went to lunch today with my wife and were discussing Great Guitar Players given I'm a experienced study of the Instrument. I mentioned to her that, although I've had the pleasure of playing music with some very notable Professional musicians that many people could easily point at and call the best, I personally have never strive to be the best. I have always thrived to learn more each day about this instrument & music in general, which changes as we breath.

As you say, we can never have the greatest in terms of absolute BUT we can name certain Players that have accomplished levels within the Game that have raised the Bar for others to aspire too.

Since popularity seems to come into play at some point or another when discussing GOAT. In a previous Post, someone said, to them Martina N. was the GOAT on the Women's side and I felt my blood boil so to speak because in my opinion, she doesn't hold a candle to Steffi Graf and if we are to consider Rod Laver, we must then consider Margret Court and if we consider Margret Court, then are we talking about numbers? Because of we are speaking in terms of numbers, then Margret Court is the GOAT. But few consider MC the GOAT, therefore, numbers isn't the barometer as we would suggest. So it is therefore a legitimate argument to say, Steffi Graf is the GOAT.

But if one person doesn't agree with Steffi Graf or Margret Court, then the question has no validity.
 
A person who wins on all surfaces. Federer because he beats everyone on every
surface except Nadal on slow red clay because he can beat Nadal on faster clay like Hamburg.
 
urban said:
It's only a speculative exercise for fans and experts, and yet this question has a history of its own. Rankings are integral parts in tennis as a sport; this could explain the attempts to name a greatest of all time list, despite the dramatic changes in the sports history and the poor official record-keeping. Maybe it's the fairest method, to give a short overview about the evolution of the matter. The names, which has been mostly cited for the men, are Laver and Tilden. Before 1950 and even before 1970, Big Bill Tilden was called the best by noted experts like Edgar Joubert, Allison Danzig, Lance Tingay or Harry Hopman. Donald Budge was Nr. 1 for Kramer and Walter Pate (US Davis Cup captain); Jack Kramer himself was called Nr. 1 by Paul Melzer. 50s star Pancho Gonzales was seen as the best by Eugene Scott and Pancho Segura. His rival Lew Hoad was regarded the best for his day by Fred Stolle and Richard Evans. The "doomsday stroke machine" Ken Rosewall got te vote of Robert Geist and Robert Denieau. "Rocket" Rod Laver has gotten many well noted supporters since the 70s, including Don Maskell, John Barrett, Tony Trabert, Ted Schroeder, John Parsons, Rex Bellamy, Joe McCauley, Gianni Clerici, Wolfgang Lencer, Michel Sutter, and just in the last months was confirmed as the greatest by Raymond Lee, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins.
In the early 80s, Bjorn Borg was referred as 'alien' champion, especially by French and European writers like Christian Quidet. The meteoric career of John McEnroe was highly regarded by old doubles champion George Lott. Around 2000, Pete Sampras got the votes of Steve Flink, Jon Wertheim, and - not so clear - by Peter Bodo. Now some of the contemporary writers and commentators, including Cliff Drysdale and Tracy Austin, seem to turn to Federer; some like Jimmy Arias or John McEnroe demand a Grand Slam or a French Open to establish his status.
There were also some important polls: Tilden came on top in an AP poll of 1950 by a wide margin over Budge, Kramer and Cochet. In an experts poll of 1969 still Tilden, Budge and Laver were top three. A large and important bunch of 36 commentators were assembled for a poll of 'Inside Tennis' in 1986, which organized a computer tournament with the help of the ATP computer. Laver won the imaginary final over McEnroe in the fifth set "for his better second serve returns". Norman Giller in 1986 compiled on computer basis a ranking with Laver as the top post WWII player (ahead of Kramer and Borg), and Tilden as the top pre WWII player. In 1998, an ATP poll was conducted for the best ATP professional players from 1973 (invention of the computer ranking) to 1998. Sampras was leading ahead of Borg and McEnroe. End 1999,the AP compiled an expert poll for the greatest player of the century. Laver was again on top, with Sampras, Tilden, Borg and Budge behind him (Graf lead Navratilova by just one point on the womens side). 'Tennis week' under Eugene Scott made several polls, in 1995 Laver was leading Tilden in a consensus vote; in 2006 on 'Tennis week' Federer and Laver had assembled the same points scale.
Click to expand...

....boring.

The GOAT..and my definition of it: Federer.
 
urban said:
It's only a speculative exercise for fans and experts, and yet this question has a history of its own. Rankings are integral parts in tennis as a sport; this could explain the attempts to name a greatest of all time list, despite the dramatic changes in the sports history and the poor official record-keeping. Maybe it's the fairest method, to give a short overview about the evolution of the matter. The names, which has been mostly cited for the men, are Laver and Tilden. Before 1950 and even before 1970, Big Bill Tilden was called the best by noted experts like Edgar Joubert, Allison Danzig, Lance Tingay or Harry Hopman. Donald Budge was Nr. 1 for Kramer and Walter Pate (US Davis Cup captain); Jack Kramer himself was called Nr. 1 by Paul Melzer. 50s star Pancho Gonzales was seen as the best by Eugene Scott and Pancho Segura. His rival Lew Hoad was regarded the best for his day by Fred Stolle and Richard Evans. The "doomsday stroke machine" Ken Rosewall got te vote of Robert Geist and Robert Denieau. "Rocket" Rod Laver has gotten many well noted supporters since the 70s, including Don Maskell, John Barrett, Tony Trabert, Ted Schroeder, John Parsons, Rex Bellamy, Joe McCauley, Gianni Clerici, Wolfgang Lencer, Michel Sutter, and just in the last months was confirmed as the greatest by Raymond Lee, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins.
In the early 80s, Bjorn Borg was referred as 'alien' champion, especially by French and European writers like Christian Quidet. The meteoric career of John McEnroe was highly regarded by old doubles champion George Lott. Around 2000, Pete Sampras got the votes of Steve Flink, Jon Wertheim, and - not so clear - by Peter Bodo. Now some of the contemporary writers and commentators, including Cliff Drysdale and Tracy Austin, seem to turn to Federer; some like Jimmy Arias or John McEnroe demand a Grand Slam or a French Open to establish his status.
There were also some important polls: Tilden came on top in an AP poll of 1950 by a wide margin over Budge, Kramer and Cochet. In an experts poll of 1969 still Tilden, Budge and Laver were top three. A large and important bunch of 36 commentators were assembled for a poll of 'Inside Tennis' in 1986, which organized a computer tournament with the help of the ATP computer. Laver won the imaginary final over McEnroe in the fifth set "for his better second serve returns". Norman Giller in 1986 compiled on computer basis a ranking with Laver as the top post WWII player (ahead of Kramer and Borg), and Tilden as the top pre WWII player. In 1998, an ATP poll was conducted for the best ATP professional players from 1973 (invention of the computer ranking) to 1998. Sampras was leading ahead of Borg and McEnroe. End 1999,the AP compiled an expert poll for the greatest player of the century. Laver was again on top, with Sampras, Tilden, Borg and Budge behind him (Graf lead Navratilova by just one point on the womens side). 'Tennis week' under Eugene Scott made several polls, in 1995 Laver was leading Tilden in a consensus vote; in 2006 on 'Tennis week' Federer and Laver had assembled the same points scale.
Click to expand...

Interesting read......For me apart from the records and achievements i also like to look at other aspects of a player. Like ,raw talent,talent displayed on a consistent basis(a.k.a non Safins,Rios,Mark P),technique,All-round ability,Promotion of the game,Professionalism on/off court, able to adapt to any surface.
 
Those Federer-fans on the internet seem to be quite as narzistic as their idol. Federer is no god, and even no demi-god or something. In 50 years he will be forgotten, someone like Jaden Agassi will have won 20 plus majors with a French between them. But Tilden and Laver will still be rembered, the one for inventing tennis, the other for his still unparalleled two Grand Slams.
 
urban said:
It's only a speculative exercise for fans and experts, and yet this question has a history of its own. Rankings are integral parts in tennis as a sport; this could explain the attempts to name a greatest of all time list, despite the dramatic changes in the sports history and the poor official record-keeping. Maybe it's the fairest method, to give a short overview about the evolution of the matter. The names, which has been mostly cited for the men, are Laver and Tilden. Before 1950 and even before 1970, Big Bill Tilden was called the best by noted experts like Edgar Joubert, Allison Danzig, Lance Tingay or Harry Hopman. Donald Budge was Nr. 1 for Kramer and Walter Pate (US Davis Cup captain); Jack Kramer himself was called Nr. 1 by Paul Metzler. 50s star Pancho Gonzales was seen as the best by Eugene Scott and Pancho Segura. His rival Lew Hoad was regarded the best for his day by Fred Stolle and Richard Evans. The "doomsday stroke machine" Ken Rosewall got te vote of Robert Geist and Robert Denieau. "Rocket" Rod Laver has gotten many well noted supporters since the 70s, including Dan Maskell, John Barrett, Tony Trabert, Ted Schroeder, John Parsons, Rex Bellamy, Joe McCauley, Gianni Clerici, Wolfgang Lencer, Michel Sutter, Ray Bowers, Vijay Amritaj and just in the last months was confirmed as the greatest by Raymond Lee, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins.
In the early 80s, Bjorn Borg was referred as 'alien' champion, especially by French and European writers like Christian Quidet. The meteoric career of John McEnroe was highly regarded by old doubles champion George Lott. Around 2000, Pete Sampras got the votes of Steve Flink, Jon Wertheim, and - not so clear - by Peter Bodo. Now some of the contemporary writers and commentators, including Cliff Drysdale and Tracy Austin, seem to turn to Federer; some like Jimmy Arias or John McEnroe demand a Grand Slam or a French Open to establish his status.
There were also some important polls: Tilden came on top in an AP poll of 1950 by a wide margin over Budge, Kramer and Cochet. In an experts poll of 1969 still Tilden, Budge and Laver were top three. A large and important bunch of 36 commentators were assembled for a poll of 'Inside Tennis' in 1986, which organized a computer tournament with the help of the ATP computer. Laver won the imaginary final over McEnroe in the fifth set "for his better second serve returns". Norman Giller in 1986 compiled on computer basis a ranking with Laver as the top post WWII player (ahead of Kramer and Borg), and Tilden as the top pre WWII player. In 1998, an ATP poll was conducted for the best ATP professional players from 1973 (invention of the computer ranking) to 1998. Sampras was leading ahead of Borg and McEnroe. End 1999,the AP compiled an expert poll for the greatest player of the century. Laver was again on top, with Sampras, Tilden, Borg and Budge behind him (Graf lead Navratilova by just one point on the womens side). 'Tennis week' under Eugene Scott made several polls, in 1995 Laver was leading Tilden in a consensus vote; in 2006 on 'Tennis week' Federer and Laver had assembled the same points scale.
Click to expand...

Paragraphs maybe? The huge wall of text scared me off.
 
Look the problem is, I've read a million of these kind of posts. Someone has a bit of a scan around the internet, or perhaps an old-timer who is trying to defend his generation pipes up and reels off a few names. In most cases they've never seen the likes of Tilden, Kramer or P. Gonzales actually play. This GOAT thing is never ending.
I went through a stage of tracking down old footage of Laver, etc, and frankly I was shocked. They move around the court at a rate of one mile every century, it's a totally different sport.

saram said:
Yeah, it was a bold statement/analysis, eh?
Click to expand...

This is part of the problem. People are trying to make bold statements just for the sake of it.
Saying Federer is the GOAT is something that can never be proved, but it holds at least as much weight as a big bold wall of words quoting polls made by people in the 50's who never even saw the likes of Sampras or Federer play.
 
urban said:
Those Federer-fans on the internet seem to be quite as narzistic as their idol. Federer is no god, and even no demi-god or something. In 50 years he will be forgotten, someone like Jaden Agassi will have won 20 plus majors with a French between them. But Tilden and Laver will still be rembered, the one for inventing tennis, the other for his still unparalleled two Grand Slams.
Click to expand...

How do you know this?
 
urban said:
Those Federer-fans on the internet seem to be quite as narzistic as their idol. Federer is no god, and even no demi-god or something. In 50 years he will be forgotten, someone like Jaden Agassi will have won 20 plus majors with a French between them. But Tilden and Laver will still be rembered, the one for inventing tennis, the other for his still unparalleled two Grand Slams.
Click to expand...

Pure hogwash. 12 slams. 5 Wimbledons in a row. Domination of years at #1....
 
urban said:
Those Federer-fans on the internet seem to be quite as narzistic as their idol. Federer is no god, and even no demi-god or something. In 50 years he will be forgotten, someone like Jaden Agassi will have won 20 plus majors with a French between them. But Tilden and Laver will still be rembered, the one for inventing tennis, the other for his still unparalleled two Grand Slams.
Click to expand...

Are you ******** or something? HISTORY is being made. You should be grateful that you are able to see it. BTW, when Federer is playing, do you notice who comes to see him play? All the former tennis greats come to see him play. I think that says something, don't you?
 
tennispro11 said:
Are you ******** or something? HISTORY is being made. You should be grateful that you are able to see it. BTW, when Federer is playing, do you notice who comes to see him play? All the former tennis greats come to see him play. I think that says something, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bjorg didn't show up to watch Nadal, that is for sure...
 
tennispro11 said:
Are you ******** or something? HISTORY is being made. You should be grateful that you are able to see it. BTW, when Federer is playing, do you notice who comes to see him play? All the former tennis greats come to see him play. I think that says something, don't you?
Click to expand...

Icluding me. lol.:p :D
 
urban said:
Those Federer-fans on the internet seem to be quite as narzistic as their idol. Federer is no god, and even no demi-god or something. In 50 years he will be forgotten, someone like Jaden Agassi will have won 20 plus majors with a French between them. But Tilden and Laver will still be rembered, the one for inventing tennis, the other for his still unparalleled two Grand Slams.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are implying by that but either way I think you are wrong. If you are saying a casual fan of tennis will have forgetten Federer in 50 years, I suppose possible. However hardly any casual fans of tennis know squat about Tilden at this point too, this forum where the casual fans are still more serious fans then the norm of the general population of tennis fans should be proof of that, and many casual fans will not know about Laver at some point too. A serious fan of tennis would know Tilden or Laver many years after the fact, but a serious tennis fan would also know Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Hoad, Perry, Sampras, some others, and definitely FEDERER too, well after they are gone.

Also who knows how slams Federer wins, but it is possible he will set a mark that will be as hard or harder to beat then Laver's 2 Grand Slams considering the more neutralized surfacing today, making the surfaces more similar and a Grand Slam more possible then in the past as long as the dominant player of the time is not confronted with a beast on a particular surface (Nadal) who they both match up poorly with and have a psychological deficit against (I am not making excuses for Federer BTW, I am pointing out how it would possible for someone in the future is all). How on earth is Tilden the one who "invented" tennis. He may have been the one who popularized the sport a great deal, but he certainly did not invent tennis. Do you give Lenglen credit for "inventing" womens tennis, after all she was on top the exact same time frame pretty much. They both happened to be the first dominant post-World War I players.
 
Last edited:
federerfanatic said:
I am not sure what you are implying by that but either way I think you are wrong. If you are saying a casual fan of tennis will have forgetten Federer in 50 years, I suppose possible. However hardly any casual fans of tennis know squat about Tilden at this point too, this forum where the casual fans are still more serious fans then the norm of the general population of tennis fans should be proof of that, and many casual fans will not know about Laver at some point too. A serious fan of tennis would know Tilden or Laver many years after the fact, but a serious tennis fan would also know Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Borg, Hoad, Perry, Sampras, some others, and definitely FEDERER too, well after they are gone.
Click to expand...

You have to love when a guy with the name 'federerfanatic' replys to a post like this. Oh and by the way he isn't 'implying' anything, he is saying people like you are comparable to (nevermind). That might be a little harsh though.

Oops didn't know you couldn't say that sorry.
 
Noveson said:
You have to love when a guy with the name 'federerfanatic' replys to a post like this. Oh and by the way he isn't 'implying' anything, he is saying people like you are comparable to (nevermind). That might be a little harsh though.

Oops didn't know you couldn't say that sorry.
Click to expand...

Actually I think what I said was perfectly reasonable and it was far from overly partial or focused only on Federer. I was pointing out that it would take a very casual fan of the game to forget Federer in 50 years time, but almost all those same casual fans hardly know squat about Tilden now (granted 80 years or so later) and many of those more casual fans wont even know about Laver a little further down the road. A more serious tennis fan would know those two well, but any serious fan also would easily remember and know about many other players in history a half century or more after they are gone, and Federer would certainly be one of them.
 
Maybe Urban's comments were a bit harsh but I can see how they were provoked. He went to great pains to provide a detailed historical overview of the major polls and rankings, showing how different generations have proclaimed each new great player as the GOAT, only to be forgotten when the next GOAT comes along. The two great exceptions have been Tilden and Laver, whose names have stood the test of time and have always placed high (if not at the very top) in these rankings. It is important to keep these things in perspective, to realize that each generation has been similarly bedazzled by its star champion. Memory cools with time, and in each new era different records and standards of greatness have become important. In 1969 one of the greatest tennis authorities, Allison Danzig, rated Henri Cochet as the second greatest player in history. Who today remembers Cochet? Does he appear on any GOAT lists? It is so hard to predict what future generations will think of a player 50, 20 or even 10 years from now. In Tilden and Laver, at least, we have two players whose reputations have endured, uninterrupted, for a long time.

Now, the problem is when Urban's very educational post is casually dismissed as "boring" and someone states that the definition of "GOAT" is Federer. Clearly this kind of anti-thinking is an insult to everyone's intelligence. No, I don't believe that Federer will be wholly forgotten in a half-century, but I do think it is still too early for us to proclaim Federer (whose memory is still being made) as GOAT, or for that matter Sampras (whose memory is still too fresh). The ultimate GOAT test is the test of time, and neither Federer nor Sampras nor Agassi has yet even had the opportunity to pass it. Let's wait and see. In the meantime, listen to Urban and you will learn a thing or two about the players who have already passed that test.
 
urban is just talking out of his rear end. I would rather take the opinions of past legends who put Federer up in high esteem than some bloke who thinks this stuff is easy.
 
Now, some of the Federer-fans are only interested in tennis history, if some of the old guys are praising their beloved player. But in earnest: Could anyone imagine, that in 2084 a biography by a then leading sportswriter will be published on Federer? That's about the status of Tilden, 80 years past his prime, that Frank Deford republishes a biography in 2004 .People are more and more rushing in their evaluation of the past. And all the records, Federer sets now, will be broken. Look, what happened to Sampras, just 5 years after his records were called unbreakable.The 14 majors of Sampras is a good, but not a super record. Without the amateur-pros split, the record would be much higher. And when the bar is set higher, records will fall more easily. In my view: In 50 years time, the only actual record not fallen, will be Laver's two Grand Slams.
 
urban said:
It's only a speculative exercise for fans and experts, and yet this question has a history of its own. Rankings are integral parts in tennis as a sport; this could explain the attempts to name a greatest of all time list, despite the dramatic changes in the sports history and the poor official record-keeping. Maybe it's the fairest method, to give a short overview about the evolution of the matter. The names, which has been mostly cited for the men, are Laver and Tilden. Before 1950 and even before 1970, Big Bill Tilden was called the best by noted experts like Edgar Joubert, Allison Danzig, Lance Tingay or Harry Hopman. Donald Budge was Nr. 1 for Kramer and Walter Pate (US Davis Cup captain); Jack Kramer himself was called Nr. 1 by Paul Metzler. 50s star Pancho Gonzales was seen as the best by Eugene Scott and Pancho Segura. His rival Lew Hoad was regarded the best for his day by Fred Stolle and Richard Evans. The "doomsday stroke machine" Ken Rosewall got te vote of Robert Geist and Robert Denieau. "Rocket" Rod Laver has gotten many well noted supporters since the 70s, including Dan Maskell, John Barrett, Tony Trabert, Ted Schroeder, John Parsons, Rex Bellamy, Joe McCauley, Gianni Clerici, Wolfgang Lencer, Michel Sutter, Ray Bowers, Vijay Amritaj and just in the last months was confirmed as the greatest by Raymond Lee, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins.
In the early 80s, Bjorn Borg was referred as 'alien' champion, especially by French and European writers like Christian Quidet. The meteoric career of John McEnroe was highly regarded by old doubles champion George Lott. Around 2000, Pete Sampras got the votes of Steve Flink, Jon Wertheim, and - not so clear - by Peter Bodo. Now some of the contemporary writers and commentators, including Cliff Drysdale and Tracy Austin, seem to turn to Federer; some like Jimmy Arias or John McEnroe demand a Grand Slam or a French Open to establish his status.
There were also some important polls: Tilden came on top in an AP poll of 1950 by a wide margin over Budge, Kramer and Cochet. In an experts poll of 1969 still Tilden, Budge and Laver were top three. A large and important bunch of 36 commentators were assembled for a poll of 'Inside Tennis' in 1986, which organized a computer tournament with the help of the ATP computer. Laver won the imaginary final over McEnroe in the fifth set "for his better second serve returns". Norman Giller in 1986 compiled on computer basis a ranking with Laver as the top post WWII player (ahead of Kramer and Borg), and Tilden as the top pre WWII player. In 1998, an ATP poll was conducted for the best ATP professional players from 1973 (invention of the computer ranking) to 1998. Sampras was leading ahead of Borg and McEnroe. End 1999,the AP compiled an expert poll for the greatest player of the century. Laver was again on top, with Sampras, Tilden, Borg and Budge behind him (Graf lead Navratilova by just one point on the womens side). 'Tennis week' under Eugene Scott made several polls, in 1995 Laver was leading Tilden in a consensus vote; in 2006 on 'Tennis week' Federer and Laver had assembled the same points scale.
Click to expand...
You know, this is quite a good post and embodies what this part of the board should be, ideally, all about-exchange of information.

However, I cannot nominate this post as the GOAT in this thread for one simple reason...you forgot to use your RETURN button to make PARAGRAPHS. This makes the post hard to read, and like Federer's annual failure at Roland Garros, it's this one little thing that's holding this post back from being GOTT (Greatest of This Thread).
 
urban said:
Now, some of the Federer-fans are only interested in tennis history, if some of the old guys are praising their beloved player. But in earnest: Could anyone imagine, that in 2084 a biography by a then leading sportswriter will be published on Federer? That's about the status of Tilden, 80 years past his prime, that Frank Deford republishes a biography in 2004 .People are more and more rushing in their evaluation of the past. And all the records, Federer sets now, will be broken. Look, what happened to Sampras, just 5 years after his records were called unbreakable.The 14 majors of Sampras is a good, but not a super record. Without the amateur-pros split, the record would be much higher. And when the bar is set higher, records will fall more easily. In my view: In 50 years time, the only actual record not fallen, will be Laver's two Grand Slams.
Click to expand...


Your right Urban..anyone who knows tennis a "Grand Slam" is the pinnacle of tennis no matter what generation ,the achievement will stand the test of time. Who knows maybe in 20-30 years players will be using space age racquets with super special strings...and playing on unknown surfaces from today. Fanboys in 2034 will look at the current crop will not even take notice of the champions of today complaining they played on unknown surfaces to them or..the competition was weak.
 
urban said:
Now, some of the Federer-fans are only interested in tennis history, if some of the old guys are praising their beloved player. But in earnest: Could anyone imagine, that in 2084 a biography by a then leading sportswriter will be published on Federer? That's about the status of Tilden, 80 years past his prime, that Frank Deford republishes a biography in 2004 .People are more and more rushing in their evaluation of the past. And all the records, Federer sets now, will be broken. Look, what happened to Sampras, just 5 years after his records were called unbreakable.The 14 majors of Sampras is a good, but not a super record. Without the amateur-pros split, the record would be much higher. And when the bar is set higher, records will fall more easily. In my view: In 50 years time, the only actual record not fallen, will be Laver's two Grand Slams.
Click to expand...

I can't see your logic in declaring "records will fall more easily" but "Laver's two Grand Slams" will not be broken.

Let's say someone surpasses 30 GS, surely it will be logically to think that someone will have got at least 3 GS? Either that or that someone plays a very long time and gets 3 titles per year for 10 years (which is unthinkable).
 
urban said:
Now, some of the Federer-fans are only interested in tennis history, if some of the old guys are praising their beloved player.
Click to expand...

Not really. I am a Federer fan but I enjoy reading about past greats, and there are many others who do I am sure.

But in earnest: Could anyone imagine, that in 2084 a biography by a then leading sportswriter will be published on Federer? That's about the status of Tilden, 80 years past his prime, that Frank Deford republishes a biography in 2004.
Click to expand...

Yes I could imagine it. Maybe you cant but I could.

People are more and more rushing in their evaluation of the past. And all the records, Federer sets now, will be broken.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. I wouldnt be so sure of that.

Look, what happened to Sampras, just 5 years after his records were called unbreakable.The 14 majors of Sampras is a good, but not a super record. Without the amateur-pros split, the record would be much higher.
Click to expand...

The Open era of tennis though lasted 30-32 years (when Pete won his 13th and 14th slams) before that new standard was set. That seems to indicate it isnt such a soft mark even considering the amateur-pros split. Granted there was a period with the Australian Open, to a lesser extent the French Open, having less value to the players. However even had all 4 slams been equally valued by players Borg is the only one in the Open era period only who might have reached or surpassed that mark, and still possibly not.

And when the bar is set higher, records will fall more easily. In my view: In 50 years time, the only actual record not fallen, will be Laver's two Grand Slams.
Click to expand...

If Federer reaches 18-20 slams, and that mark is somehow broken, it is likely Laver's two Grand Slams will be matched or broken as well. The tour is leaning towards making surfaces more homogeneous of late, so dominance across all surfaces is more conceivable then before, while at the same time the game is increasingly becoming more physically demanding then ever making great longevity that much more challenging. There might be a better chance in the future of a player winning two Grand Slams in a 3 or 4 year span then winning as many Slams as Federer might win, when you consider the more homogeneous playing conditions and the increased physical demands of a top player.
 
Phil said:
You know, this is quite a good post..... exchange of information. However, I cannot nominate this post as the GOAT in this thread for one simple reason...you forgot to use your RETURN button to mke PARAGRAPHS....
Click to expand...

Urban's original "informative" post (reprinted without authorization):

It's only a speculative exercise for fans and experts, and yet this question has a history of its own. Rankings are integral parts in tennis as a sport; this could explain the attempts to name a greatest of all time list, despite the dramatic changes in the sports history and the poor official record-keeping. Maybe it's the fairest method, to give a short overview about the evolution of the matter. The names, which has been mostly cited for the men, are Laver and Tilden.

INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH HERE
Before 1950 and even before 1970, Big Bill Tilden was called the best by noted experts like Edgar Joubert, Allison Danzig, Lance Tingay or Harry Hopman. Donald Budge was Nr. 1 for Kramer and Walter Pate (US Davis Cup captain); Jack Kramer himself was called Nr. 1 by Paul Metzler. 50s star Pancho Gonzales was seen as the best by Eugene Scott and Pancho Segura. His rival Lew Hoad was regarded the best for his day by Fred Stolle and Richard Evans. The "doomsday stroke machine" Ken Rosewall got te vote of Robert Geist and Robert Denieau. "Rocket" Rod Laver has gotten many well noted supporters since the 70s, including Dan Maskell, John Barrett, Tony Trabert, Ted Schroeder, John Parsons, Rex Bellamy, Joe McCauley, Gianni Clerici, Wolfgang Lencer, Michel Sutter, Ray Bowers, Vijay Amritaj and just in the last months was confirmed as the greatest by Raymond Lee, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, and Bud Collins.

INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH HERE
In the early 80s, Bjorn Borg was referred as 'alien' champion, especially by French and European writers like Christian Quidet. The meteoric career of John McEnroe was highly regarded by old doubles champion George Lott. Around 2000, Pete Sampras got the votes of Steve Flink, Jon Wertheim, and - not so clear - by Peter Bodo. Now some of the contemporary writers and commentators, including Cliff Drysdale and Tracy Austin, seem to turn to Federer; some like Jimmy Arias or John McEnroe demand a Grand Slam or a French Open to establish his status.

INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH HERE
There were also some important polls: Tilden came on top in an AP poll of 1950 by a wide margin over Budge, Kramer and Cochet. In an experts poll of 1969 still Tilden, Budge and Laver were top three. A large and important bunch of 36 commentators were assembled for a poll of 'Inside Tennis' in 1986, which organized a computer tournament with the help of the ATP computer. Laver won the imaginary final over McEnroe in the fifth set "for his better second serve returns". Norman Giller in 1986 compiled on computer basis a ranking with Laver as the top post WWII player (ahead of Kramer and Borg), and Tilden as the top pre WWII player. In 1998, an ATP poll was conducted for the best ATP professional players from 1973 (invention of the computer ranking) to 1998. Sampras was leading ahead of Borg and McEnroe. End 1999,the AP compiled an expert poll for the greatest player of the century. Laver was again on top, with Sampras, Tilden, Borg and Budge behind him (Graf lead Navratilova by just one point on the womens side). 'Tennis week' under Eugene Scott made several polls, in 1995 Laver was leading Tilden in a consensus vote; in 2006 on 'Tennis week' Federer and Laver had assembled the same points scale. --- End of post.

Phil's right; it now reads much easier.

I now nominate urban's post as GOTT.
 
federerfanatic said:
The Open era of tennis though lasted 30-32 years (when Pete won his 13th and 14th slams) before that new standard was set. That seems to indicate it isnt such a soft mark even considering the amateur-pros split. Granted there was a period with the Australian Open, to a lesser extent the French Open, having less value to the players. However even had all 4 slams been equally valued by players Borg is the only one in the Open era period only who might have reached or surpassed that mark, and still possibly not.
Click to expand...

Sampras was the first great player who cared about that record--if it had mattered to Borg he easily could have competed in the Australian or stuck around a bit longer; when he retired he was only one behind Emerson. (Emerson once claimed he didn't even know he had the record!) The reason Emerson's record hung around so long was not that it was ever considered unbreakable... it's because no player, fan, or expert considered it a particularly serious indicator of greatness. The Grand Slam, number of Wimbledon titles won (and consecutive Wimbledon titles), years No. 1, etc., were all recognized as being much more cherished and important marks. When Sampras decided to make a run at Emerson's record, tennis experienced a sort of paradigm shift where other players, fans, and commentators began to give priority to the number of major titles won over these other, older indicators of greatness. Urban's point--and he is absolutely right about this--is that because future generations of champions will now be focused on this record and motivated to break it, it will continue to be broken more rapidly. Look what is happening already with Federer. If Sampras's record stands for only a few years then it cannot be considered a great record. We'll have to wait and see if Federer's new record will be similarly short lived.

On the other hand, Sampras does share one great record: the seven Wimbledon titles first reached by Willie Renshaw, a record that had stood since the 1880s. Next year Federer will try to tie Renshaw's six consecutive titles, a record which has been unequaled for just as long. If Federer eventually surpasses both these marks--with a seventh straight Wimbledon and at least eight overall--then that will be a far, far more impressive and monumental achievement than his winning a fifteenth major.
 
When Sampras reached #14, many of his fans started using the statistic as a key indicator for naming Sampras as the greatest player of all time. When Federer fans were claiming Federer to be the GOAT when he had only half a dozen slams to his name some the Sampras fans said things along the lines of "let's talk when Federer is near #14". Now that Federer is near #14 the Sampras fans are unwilling to have that discussion because it seems Federer will surpass #14 if the past 10 slams are any indication of the next couple of slams.

Also much of the support that Sampras once had has shifted to supporting players like Laver and other guys from the dusty history books of the pre open era simply because imo those sampras supporters don't want to concede the argument of GOAT to Federer so they dig up the records of top players from the distant past.
 
Sampras was just plain better than everyone. Back then, it was clear that he was a cut above Laver and Borg and McEnroe/Connors/Lendl. Now the lines are getting blurrier because, as AAAA said, people are digging up these old records to try to downplay Federer's achievements, and Sampras' achievements are getting downplayed as a side effect. But it's clear that Sampras was the GOAT a few years ago, and now Federer is just better than Sampras. He is Sampras 2.0. And I'm sure there will be someone else, and someone after him.
 
Last edited:
Obviously people here are very confused. There can only be one Goat!
yck81.jpg
 
If you took all the great players in their prime and put them in a tournamnet, Federer would win it. In my mind, that means he's the greatest of all time. But I also know that its impossible to compare players of different eras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GasquetGOAT
"GOAT" Definition by Urban Dictionary
Replies
11
Views
8K
Mustard
Mustard
saram
The GOAT...
Replies
28
Views
3K
Hitman
Hitman
N
Downgrading GOAT status to 'One of the Greats'
2 3
Replies
120
Views
9K
P99
P
S
"Nadal piling more RG titles only cements more and more his Clay GOAT status"
11 12 13
Replies
608
Views
40K
KINGROGER
K
TCG
Did Nadal Surpass Pete on the GOAT list?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
10K
Spider
S
Back
Top