The Greats -an Objective list
- Thread starter Spencer Gore
- Start date
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
So what are the objective criteria for GOAT?
Very interesting what statistics are you using. Please tell me.
Laver has 20 majors. The stats prove that Laver and Rosewall are unreachable for Fed.
Evaluation of all the titles of the players.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
How do we weight them?
I have built a methodology. A small part of it is: Open era major - 2,000 points, Pro major - 1,500 points, Amateur major - 1,000 points. Awarding points for all levels - final, semi, quarter etc. respectively.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
How is that objective and not your subjective criteria? Where does number 1 ranking play a role in all of this?
Fully objective. Concerns all the players equally not anybody's bias.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
1) how do we rather other categories of tournaments?
2) how do we rate rankings?
3) why not rather:
Open era major - 5,000 points, Pro major - 2,500 points, Amateur major - 1,000 points
4) how do we scale the points relative to the stage reached in the tournament
5) if this remains logically consistent, how is it objective?
1. Very easy. They were big tournaments in the pre open era which were not majors. They are Masters equivalents. The other tournaments are 500 and 250 equivalents respectively.
2. Don't understand the question.
3. Simple - a basis is the current point system. Then the pro majors are similar to the current ATP finals - the best players played there. The amateur majors were big events but with a smaller competition than the current. Half of the points is fair.
4. Here I have to write a lot. But example with the pro majors - W 1,500; F 900; SF 540; QF 270; R16 135. The same principle as the current point proportion.
5. It is logically consistent and fair because it uses the same principles of the current tour and tournaments specification.
But all this requires a huge work.
Just one correction - some of the pro majors in the 40s and 50s were less competitive and thus have less points.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
Is this objective or subjective?1. Very easy. They were big tournaments in the pre open era which were not majors. They are Masters equivalents. The other tournaments are 500 and 250 equivalents respectively.
2. Don't understand the question.
3. Simple - a basis is the current point system. Then the pro majors are similar to the current ATP finals - the best players played there. The amateur majors were big events but with a smaller competition than the current. Half of the points is fair.
4. Here I have to write a lot. But example with the pro majors - W 1,500; F 900; SF 540; QF 270; R16 135. The same principle as the current point proportion.
5. It is logically consistent and fair because it uses the same principles of the current tour and tournaments specification.
But all this requires a huge work.
You can be reasonable in a subjective framework mind you, but I don’t think you realise what kind of claim you’re making when you use the word objective.
Nope, it's not subjective. It's a fully developed system with arguments for every detail why is that or why not.
Subjective would be if I am using different criteria to different players in order to give an advantage to some players. I don't intend to favor somebody where 99% in this forum do.
If you tell me - why 1,500 points but not 1,400 I would agree. But this would not change the figures significantly. But the points proportion should be adequately for both eras.
Last edited:
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Applying consistent ranking criteria (where every class of event is always worth the same amount) across the history of tennis is like trying to absolutely essentialise culture. We know that tennis has gone through drastic structural changes over time and that some eras are pretty much incommensurate, therefore any essentialised and universal ranking system will be trying to appropriate certain periods of tennis history through a lens not of its own time. It's a trap to believe that such a system would be "objective" especially when it tries to encapsulate such an unstable history. This is aside from considering the difficulties in assigning even rough values to tournaments and events which, apart from having many hierarchical permutations which would have different weightings throughout tennis history through which they can be judged, are not all entirely recorded nor agreed upon even at the time of their happening.
NN, I see your point.
1. The accomplishments not only in tennis but in all sports also in the other spheres of life were/are always comparable. Just you should find the fair metrics for every different area. Everybody knows that Pele is #1 in football (soccer). Why? Because he is a 3 times World champion, has many titles and more than 1,000 goals.
2. The history has been always evaluated with the current lens, especially when somebody compares events from different time periods. That's why the history is getting more and more precise, effective and clear.
3. I am not sure what you mean by an "unstable history". Of course they were some organisational and political difficulties especially in the 50s but this was as it was. Anyway we should respect the 100 years of pre open tennis. I would say that the first 5-6 years of the open tennis was more complex than in the 50s - different tours, different leagues, different pointing, different ranking, problems with the players' contracts etc.
4. Currently we are very happy because many of the pre open events are already discovered. I still miss a very few one-night matches in the 50s and 60s and maybe a few more titles of Laver and Rosewall.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Right. So in trying to conceive a system, understanding these potential pitfalls can yield a fairer and more "objective" system but the human instinct(?) for categorisation and order out of chaos always tries to cut corners, and so the risk is in conceiving a system which does a disservice to history. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, just that it is fraught with difficulties. It's still something which interests me.
What I meant by the history of tennis being unstable is that it's had a volatile history - which you went on to explain anyway. In many ways the history of tennis is very stable in that it's been strong and important in the sphere of sport for a very long time (across all of its history?)...
Nishikorigoat
Rookie
Nadal is clearly ahead of Federer on the all time list.LOL, always lumping Nadal in with Federer. LOLLLLLLLL
Yeah, yeah. I realize the risks of the perception of a new info or a new revaluation of old info. I know there would be many reactions and confusions about it. This doesn't bother me. I will try to present my philosophy to anybody.
Many fans don't know or know limited the pre open history. That's a bigger problem.
Tennisanity
Legend
Sure, if your eyes are filled with doo doo.
SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
No that is not what subjective is. Subjective might be weighting the criteria differently and thus reaching different conclusions.
So, the selection of your relevant criteria is to some extent subjective. The weighting of them is subjective to a significant degree. And the categorisation that follows is almost entirely subjective.
As you see I am not "weighting the criteria differently and thus reaching different conclusions". The criteria are exactly the same for all players.
I agree there is a subjective element. But the important is that this doesn't impact significantly on all calculations. It's a matter of math.
I could say that ATP also applies subjectivity in the current points system. But who cares? It is what it is. I may disagree with ATP but so what.
About the categorisation I can discuss it as long as you wish. As well as the ATP categorisation. Tell a year and I am ready - from 1877 to 2018.
Nishikorigoat
Rookie
According to most ex pros after USO most had Nadal ahead. On fox sports they had a whole section on the subject.
Tennisanity
Legend
Your eyes AND ears are filled with doo doo, clearly.
Similar threads
