The Laver Borg greatness disadvantage - nothing to chase?

[kragster]

This is not a "why Laver/Borg is the Goat" thread. Rather, I wanted to raise a point in terms of comparing the greatness of past year greats and today's greats.

Greatness as measured by some total of accomplishments is the only objective way and I recognize that. However, put yourself in the shoes of some of these past year greats. Laver and Borg were practically the slam count leaders at their time (or close to Emerson). Prize money/publicity etc was no where close to the crazy amounts today. So the motivation to keep getting better and better or stay in the game was simply not what it is today.

Guys like Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic have the advantage of clear targets they can chase and they get rewarded handsomely for it. Even when Federer had that bad 2008 (for his standards), he knew that he was close to breaking Sampras's records and that surely must have helped motivate him.

This is not to say that today's players don't have disadvantages. The talent pool is certainly larger now and players are fitter than ever. So the fair thing to say is that although if you had to choose 1 way to rank greatness it would be total accomplishments, we are better off not comparing guys like Laver and Borg to guys like Nadal/Fed/Sampras

 

[jg153040]

I think champions have intrinsic motivation. To win as much as possible. Fed didn't stop at 15 either. He didn't stop at 17. Did you see him motivated at AO 2013?

I guess intrinsic motivation is also necessary for being goat. To be motivated without anything to chase. But champions always find something. Most guys know they won't catch Fed and they are still motivated.

Champions compete against themselves. And because they love the game. I think Fed is even more motivated being the one chased.

So I don't think we can use those reasons you stated. I think Fed having 17 majors and the guy behind him having 2 majors would motivate him even more. He loves to dominate.

 

[mattennis]

I already explained this in the past.

It is not by chance that when Lendl matched Connors' record of 268 total weeks at nº1, he only added two more weeks at nº1 ( 270 ).

It is not by chance that when Sampras matched Lendl's record of 270 total weeks at nº1, he only added 16 more weeks ( 286 ).

It is not by chance that when Federer finally matched Sampras's record of 286 total weeks at nº1, he only added 16 more weeks ( 302 ).

Once you match and surpass a record, that HUGE motivation is over. You may add a bit more, but you'll never get as high as if the record had been much higher previously.

In other words, had Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors been born in reverse order, their total weeks at nº1 would probably have been just the reverse order as well (Connors a bit more than Lendl, a bit more than Sampras, and a bit more than Federer), because they would have been chasing the former records in just the reverse order that they did in actual history.

 

[Russeljones]

I already explained this in the past.

It is not by chance that when Lendl matched Connors' record of 268 total weeks at nº1, he only added two more weeks at nº1 ( 270 ).

It is not by chance that when Sampras matched Lendl's record of 270 total weeks at nº1, he only added 16 more weeks ( 286 ).

It is not by chance that when Federer finally matched Sampras's record of 286 total weeks at nº1, he only added 16 more weeks ( 302 ).

Once you match and surpass a record, that HUGE motivation is over. You may add a bit more, but you'll never get as high as if the record had been much higher previously.

In other words, had Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors been born in reverse order, their total weeks at nº1 would probably have been just the reverse order as well (Connors a bit more than Lendl, a bit more than Sampras, and a bit more than Federer), because they would have been chasing the former records in just the reverse order that they did in actual history.

Or it could be that maintaining such dominance is so difficult and the longer the streak stretches the higher the strain and eventually it is cut short. The small number of players amassing such streaks only shows how incredibly difficult that is. So I think your argument is perhaps not entirely lacking logically, but it also implies that these players could have had (insert arbitrary number) more consecutive weeks as world #1, which is a little farfetched.

I agree with the OP though, You can only beat what is put in front of you and back in those days they were on top. This shouldn't put us off comparing though as even back then players accomplished astounding feats that deserve to be mentioned and matched against those of modern players. This of course only applies to players from the Open Era. Comparing the players preceding those to modern players is like Star Wars vs Star Trek.

 

[Morj]

I already explained this in the past.

It is not by chance that when Lendl matched Connors' record of 268 total weeks at nº1, he only added two more weeks at nº1 ( 270 ).

It is not by chance that when Sampras matched Lendl's record of 270 total weeks at nº1, he only added 16 more weeks ( 286 ).

It is not by chance that when Federer finally matched Sampras's record of 286 total weeks at nº1, he only added 16 more weeks ( 302 ).

Once you match and surpass a record, that HUGE motivation is over. You may add a bit more, but you'll never get as high as if the record had been much higher previously.

In other words, had Federer, Sampras, Lendl and Connors been born in reverse order, their total weeks at nº1 would probably have been just the reverse order as well (Connors a bit more than Lendl, a bit more than Sampras, and a bit more than Federer), because they would have been chasing the former records in just the reverse order that they did in actual history.

This is actually so true, one of Federer's biggest goals for the longest time was just to surpass Sampras' no. 1 record. He scheduled and prepped just so that he could get back to no. 1 and last long enough to beat Sampras. Future all-time greats will be focusing on surpassing Fed's record, so its not entirely fair. It's completely possible that if Sampras had 310 weeks at no. 1 then Fed would have worked to surpass that.

 

[Bobby Jr]

I think each of Lendl, Sampras and Federer eclipsing the bar set by their predecessor is partially about milestones per se but probably just as much a reflection that the length of a player's normal prime range is about 300 weeks/6 years give or take. Plus, especially in Lendl's case, the further you get to the extreme ends of your prime the harder it is to be dominant everywhere. Federer's slam tally is so high because he was able to completely dominate two majors for five years straight, winning half the majors played for half a decade - something which hasn't come close to being achieved since Borg.

As much as people say domination indicates a weak pool of opponents the fact that each of Federer, Sampras and Lendl achieved huge things off their most successful major is some indication that they were simply head and shoulders above their peers for a number of years in a row - unlike players like Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic who have only managed to be dominant off their most successful surface only one, maybe two years in their career so far.

Imo, it goes to show just how rare it is to have year-round dominance year after year.

 

[monfed]

I think champions have intrinsic motivation. To win as much as possible. Fed didn't stop at 15 either. He didn't stop at 17. Did you see him motivated at AO 2013?

I guess intrinsic motivation is also necessary for being goat. To be motivated without anything to chase. But champions always find something. Most guys know they won't catch Fed and they are still motivated.

Champions compete against themselves. And because they love the game. I think Fed is even more motivated being the one chased.

So I don't think we can use those reasons you stated. I think Fed having 17 majors and the guy behind him having 2 majors would motivate him even more. He loves to dominate.

To be fair,Fed is motivated to win more slams even after breaking Pete's mark is because he knows deep down that Ralph has a chance of equalling/surpassing him.

 

[Russeljones]

I think each of Lendl, Sampras and Federer eclipsing the bar set by their predecessor is partially about milestones per se but probably just as much a reflection that the length of a player's normal prime range is about 300 weeks/6 years give or take. Plus, especially in Lendl's case, the further you get to the extreme ends of your prime the harder it is to be dominant everywhere. Federer's slam tally is so high because he was able to completely dominate two majors for five years straight, winning half the majors played for half a decade - something which hasn't come close to being achieved since Borg.

As much as people say domination indicates a weak pool of opponents the fact that each of Federer, Sampras and Lendl achieved huge things off their most successful major is some indication that they were simply head and shoulders above their peers for a number of years in a row - unlike players like Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic who have only managed to be dominant off their most successful surface only one, maybe two years in their career so far.

Imo, it goes to show just how rare it is to have year-round dominance year after year.

And we know what group of supporters choose to completely ignore this.