I honestly think we have gone too far turning the majors into the' holy grail'. Few people here even bothers to look outside the majors, and the number one ranking and head to heads, We treat the entire tour as though it is meaningless - except it needs to mean something if we want top players to show, and fans to fill seats, and media needs to cover venues other than Melbourne RG, Wimbledon or New York. We don't ask how well our top ten or GOAT candidates did in Toronto, or Rome, or Los Angeles, or Miami etc. We don't even look at the results, or the scores. The pendulum needs to swing back a little, away from majors towards the places we are likely to see tennis played. Their legacies and our access need to coincide if the tour is to be healthy. Am I crazy?
The majors are overhyped.
- Thread starter BTURNER
- Start date
C
Chadalina
Guest
Grand slams still have value. Masters though arent anything special now that they are 2 out 3.
There are currently two tiers of tournaments, masters used to be like mini grand slams, now they are wta events
There are currently two tiers of tournaments, masters used to be like mini grand slams, now they are wta events
F
FRV
Guest
I have a problem with... your sig! A bird clearly knows it's in the air, because it also spends time on the solid surfaces. Preposterous to say otherwise my good lad.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
IW and MI are still the only premier secondary tournaments around and yes above the WTF for me (at least IW is).
With the Masters all being Bo3, it has elevated the Slams to a fairly ridiculous gap now and frankly created a vacuum for the 1990+ generation because of the Bo5 transition. Just look at Zverev.
We need 1500 events which will employ 96 player draws and Bo5 in the SF & F.
Otherwise yeah, the Slams are disproportionate to the rest of the tour.
With the Masters all being Bo3, it has elevated the Slams to a fairly ridiculous gap now and frankly created a vacuum for the 1990+ generation because of the Bo5 transition. Just look at Zverev.
We need 1500 events which will employ 96 player draws and Bo5 in the SF & F.
Otherwise yeah, the Slams are disproportionate to the rest of the tour.
Towny
Hall of Fame
It's the way it is. If it wasn't the AO back in the day, then it was the YEC. It's not as though slams carrying a lot more weight is anything new. If anything, I feel masters 1000 equivalents have become more important in recent years now that they're mandatory.
Sampras only won 11 and he clearly wasn't bothered. Even Federer skipped a bunch in the first few years of his prime. But now, most players play all or all but one of them. Zverev has built his legacy outside of slams. People talk about how many 'big titles' the Big 3 have won.
Slams deserve to be held at the value they are for a number of reasons. But while a select few people ignore all outside of slams, most people don't.
Sampras only won 11 and he clearly wasn't bothered. Even Federer skipped a bunch in the first few years of his prime. But now, most players play all or all but one of them. Zverev has built his legacy outside of slams. People talk about how many 'big titles' the Big 3 have won.
Slams deserve to be held at the value they are for a number of reasons. But while a select few people ignore all outside of slams, most people don't.
Achievements should be put in their specific context. That's important for me. Australian Open and Roland garros weren't always as valuable as USO or Wimbledon. There were times when they were clearly behind YEC (Masters & Dallas). There were times when players showed their greatness in Davis Cup. And there are certainly more aspects that should be considered when it comes to a players legacy. Slam count alone is not enough.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I agree that we have to look at everything and put achievements in context but the Slams are the biggest thing by far, so it's reasonnable to give them top status. As soon as some top players that are able to win an event don't care too much about winning an event, its value diminish (thus it exclude top players who don't try Wimbledon/Roland-Garros because hardly have a chance in the first place).
Master 1000 have gained a lot of value recently as they are mandatory, despite the 3 sets finals, and they do have value for the top players, but still sometimes they treat them as nothing more than warm-up.
The Los Angeles, Gstaad and Bucarest in my opinion have value for the lower players, not much for the top players who can quite easily breeze through a field where they are the only top dogs. Good to separate Berdych from Mecir or Enqvist, not too valuable to separate Federer from Nadal. Obviously winning them is still better than not winning them.
Ranking is very important but it also must be put into context. Some years you can end n°2 with stellar achievements, some years you only need to bag one slam and two lesser titles.
I sometimes think the opposite, especially when discussing the past. YEC,s for instance seems to carry equal weight comapred to each other and sometimes to slams (on these boards). There's no way Grand Slam Cup was as important as the ATP finals in the 90s, for instance. GSC as I remember it was basically an exhibition tournament with a lot of money.
The GSC was one of the big wins of Canadian player Greg Rusedski's career.
When Sampras won those masters was it best of 5?.....
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
The question you ask is interesting BT.
On one side there is
- the Bo5 totem,
- history
- our willingness to reduce problems, to synthesize, to focus on one event or at most 4 events.
On the other hand there is the fact that
- all the best players win the other Big Titles,
- points assigned by ATP.
Totem Bo5: it seems to me that there is the certainty that in tennis the best is the one that best plays long and expensive tournaments.
It's very strange this. Tennis is a sport of class and technique, great physical form should not be seen as a positive characteristic.
If a player plays Bo3 tournaments well but not Bo5 is seen as a failure. The physicist seems to be more considered of the technique. Better the power-game than a stop-volley ?
History: it is said that the history of the slams is monumental but it is a false history.
It's simply very long but the Australian has always been a tournament for beggars, a National.
And the others 3 before 1968 were full of supporting actors, almost never big names.
The winners and runner-ups until 1968 are really poor.
Our concentration is very limited, the media know it and sell a product: so we watch swimming only at the Olympics, we only see the NBA playoffs, the World Cup final, the Rugby World Cup final, the Tour de France.
It's serious this? Is this an interest in sport?
In cinema, do we only see Oscar-winning films? In the music only 10 songs of country music or blues? Or are there too many 10? Better 4.
Do the top players only engage in slams? Apart from Sampras who for a number of reasons could not emerge in the other big titles all the other champions have won many big titles. Djokovic, Nadal and Fedr have won many slams and many other big titles.
ATP ranking attributes many points to the Masters (half of a slam) but it seems that fans and the media are not interested.
We read that winning a slam > 10 Masters, but 3 Masters > 1 slam for ATP.
Personal comment:
I do not like slams because they are all Bo5, I would like at least 1 to be Bo3, another Bo5, but only from the semi-finals, because they are favored more physical players and less those with more individual technique.
Leconte, Gene Mayer, Lutz and Panatta had a similar technique to Borg, Connors and Lendl but they did not have their body.
The story of the slam is mythologized because it is largely disgusting. It's not just ugly, but really disgusting.
Fans of this sport should not reduce problems, synthesize, but concentrate on the whole season: tennis can not be reduced to 4 events. Otherwise the vision is partial, therefore wrong.
Not considering how much ATP recognizes WTC and Masters 1000 means not attaching importance to ATP.
Not considering WTC and Masters 1000 means eliminating half of the palmares also of the Big 3.
On one side there is
- the Bo5 totem,
- history
- our willingness to reduce problems, to synthesize, to focus on one event or at most 4 events.
On the other hand there is the fact that
- all the best players win the other Big Titles,
- points assigned by ATP.
Totem Bo5: it seems to me that there is the certainty that in tennis the best is the one that best plays long and expensive tournaments.
It's very strange this. Tennis is a sport of class and technique, great physical form should not be seen as a positive characteristic.
If a player plays Bo3 tournaments well but not Bo5 is seen as a failure. The physicist seems to be more considered of the technique. Better the power-game than a stop-volley ?
History: it is said that the history of the slams is monumental but it is a false history.
It's simply very long but the Australian has always been a tournament for beggars, a National.
And the others 3 before 1968 were full of supporting actors, almost never big names.
The winners and runner-ups until 1968 are really poor.
Our concentration is very limited, the media know it and sell a product: so we watch swimming only at the Olympics, we only see the NBA playoffs, the World Cup final, the Rugby World Cup final, the Tour de France.
It's serious this? Is this an interest in sport?
In cinema, do we only see Oscar-winning films? In the music only 10 songs of country music or blues? Or are there too many 10? Better 4.
Do the top players only engage in slams? Apart from Sampras who for a number of reasons could not emerge in the other big titles all the other champions have won many big titles. Djokovic, Nadal and Fedr have won many slams and many other big titles.
ATP ranking attributes many points to the Masters (half of a slam) but it seems that fans and the media are not interested.
We read that winning a slam > 10 Masters, but 3 Masters > 1 slam for ATP.
Personal comment:
I do not like slams because they are all Bo5, I would like at least 1 to be Bo3, another Bo5, but only from the semi-finals, because they are favored more physical players and less those with more individual technique.
Leconte, Gene Mayer, Lutz and Panatta had a similar technique to Borg, Connors and Lendl but they did not have their body.
The story of the slam is mythologized because it is largely disgusting. It's not just ugly, but really disgusting.
Fans of this sport should not reduce problems, synthesize, but concentrate on the whole season: tennis can not be reduced to 4 events. Otherwise the vision is partial, therefore wrong.
Not considering how much ATP recognizes WTC and Masters 1000 means not attaching importance to ATP.
Not considering WTC and Masters 1000 means eliminating half of the palmares also of the Big 3.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Yes, you are a wee bit crazy. In every major sport, there is a hierarchy of defining achievement / supreme value. It has and is the way a sport crowns the ultimate victory--the culmination of defeating the best at an inherently linked representation of the sport's greatest event(s). Tennis is no different and should never have supreme achievement watered down to the random events on the schedule, not only for the obvious reason already mentioned, but it would open the door to players who win at many of the non-major events but who never had a snowball's chance in Hell of ever winning a major, suddenly being rated at the same level of majors winners. It nonsensical and self-defeating to ultimate victory and that aforementioned supreme value in/about the sport.
For example, no one in the NBA would attempt to downgrade the Championship Finals title to the level of playoff victories, as there is a point in teams trying to reach a level---the top--and be satisfied with lesser achievements as if they lived up to their sport's top goal. Again, the same applies to tennis and the rest of the major sports for every sensible reason tied to any competitive situation/job, etc.
Last edited:
Towny
Hall of Fame
Most had Bo5 finals, some were Bo3 finals
The strange thing is that in road cycling the Tour de France is the most important race but the fans also discuss the Giro d'Italia, the Roubaix, the World Championship, the Vuelta, the Liege, the Flanders .... Valverde and Sagan are the most popular in the world and they do not win the Tour de France.
In Europe it is discudded the NBA but also the Euroleague, the basketball national championship, the Olympics, the World Ch.
Football is not just the World Championship, but the national championships (Bundesliga, Premier...), the Champions League, the Europa League, the national cups.
Messi and Ronaldo are the best players even if they did not win the World Cup.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Would you say the same about the Olympics for track and field athletes, the World Cup in football (soccer), the Tour de France in cycling, etc?
The point is that competitors have to prove they are the greatest by winning the greatest events.
Aye.
It is a vexed question for which there is no clear answer.
Who is greater, the player who wins Wimbledon and Forest Hills, or the player who finishes first in the ATP points championship?
Often, this will be two different players, or three different players.
The official world champion (ATP) may or may not be the greatest player.
It was always that way, the official champion and the greatest player may be two different players.
Who is greater, the player who wins Wimbledon and Forest Hills, or the player who finishes first in the ATP points championship?
Often, this will be two different players, or three different players.
The official world champion (ATP) may or may not be the greatest player.
It was always that way, the official champion and the greatest player may be two different players.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I am inclined to agree, but do the four greatest events outweigh everything else?
Winners of the greatest events and world's greatest usually align, but not necessarily so, (e.g. Rios is often cited as the only world no. 1 to never win a slam).
My beef is not with the majors per se, nor the points awarded for each. I appreciate the entire tour, and certainly regard the majors as the most significant tournaments of that tour.
My annoyance is with those persons who never look beyond the majors, never discuss any thing else, and appear to believe that nothing else matters. (I have a similar argument with those who would say that ONLY winners of slams can be world no. 1 for the year.)
For instance, there are those Fed fans who feel that his 20 slams total is the only thing that matters--not his weeks at no. 1, not his years at no. 1, not his being the oldest no. 1 in ATP history, not his having won six or more titles at seven different tournaments, not his Olympic gold in doubles, not his total career titles, not his 82% winning rate, not his Davis Cup world title, not his six titles at the WTF, etc. (Perhaps they ignore these other distinctions because Fed is not the leader in all of them. Maybe if the quantity of 20 slams is ever surpassed, they will immediately state that slams are not really all that important.?!)
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
KG provides an excellent response in post 21.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
He provides a good response, but Messi is not the GOAT, due to his lack of a World Cup.
Who is the GOAT then, Pele, Maradona, Zidane? Messi is the best player I've seen in my lifetime in an era where we have more parity in the sport across the nations, and clubs than we ever had previously. He would get my vote.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Maradona for me.
Messi 4th behind Maradona, Pele and Di Stefano.
Messi was in a WC final in 2014 and was utterly incapable of inspiring Argentina to victory.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Maradona is greater than Messi but Pele is GOAT for me. Di Stefano was great at Club level but did literally nothing at the WC stage. I would rate puskas over di Stefano any day. Zidane is the most overrated player ever.
frodobaggins
Rookie
I do not think the majors are everything, but they still take priority over all else. I could see placing someone with 1, 2 or in rare instances 3 less slams above, but that is max. For instance there is no case Nadal or Djokovic are better than Federer yet, until they close the slam gap/catch him in slams. I am guessing OP is a Nadal/Djokovic fan who wants there to be a case they are over Federer, but not until they win more slams. Borg unfortunately can not seriously be considered as the GOAT against someone like Federer, or even against Nadal or Djokovic, with only 11 slams. There is likewise no argument IMO Evert or Navratilova are not inferior to all of Court, Graf, Serena, when they are a whopping 4-6 slams behind, the only GOAT debate atleast of the modern day players is between those 3 with Evert/Navratilova extensively shut out and fighting for 4th best.
Some rare instances I can think where I think someone with 2 or 3 slams less might have an argument to be over someone else would be Borg vs Sampras, Venus/Henin vs Seles, Connolly vs King, Davenport vs Sharapova, Djokovic vs Nadal, Graf v Court, and just maybe (at a stretch) Sampras vs Nadal. That is about it, if I really strain my brain I might be able to come up with 1 or 2 more, but even that list is a short one. And 2 or 3 would be the max.
The only exceptions to all this are the people like Laver, Gonzales, who were completely shut out of the pro games and playing slams most of their primes/careers. They are a unique case, but nobody else. The generic "she/he didnt play the Australian enough" doesnt go very far for me, especialy as it is almost always easily countered by similarily valid what ifs for ones peers.
Some rare instances I can think where I think someone with 2 or 3 slams less might have an argument to be over someone else would be Borg vs Sampras, Venus/Henin vs Seles, Connolly vs King, Davenport vs Sharapova, Djokovic vs Nadal, Graf v Court, and just maybe (at a stretch) Sampras vs Nadal. That is about it, if I really strain my brain I might be able to come up with 1 or 2 more, but even that list is a short one. And 2 or 3 would be the max.
The only exceptions to all this are the people like Laver, Gonzales, who were completely shut out of the pro games and playing slams most of their primes/careers. They are a unique case, but nobody else. The generic "she/he didnt play the Australian enough" doesnt go very far for me, especialy as it is almost always easily countered by similarily valid what ifs for ones peers.
frodobaggins
Rookie
Also off topic but LOL at anyone who thinks Messi is the football/soccer GOAT. No freaking way.
Enceladus
Legend
Rod Laver, which you have in your avatar, once said - Are two kinds of tennis tournaments, Grand Slams and others tournaments.
GS tournaments will always be Mount Everest of tennis.
Enceladus
Legend
For myself, I can say I appreciate all the successes of Nole, on GS and outside GS.
Navratilova is regularly in the GOAT debates over Court, sometimes even Evert too. Most Court's titles are of subordinate quality.
1) nobody thinks that Shanghai > Flushing Meadows or that Miami > Australian Open, none ... 0%.
This is not the point of the thread: the point is that it seems that many consider only, I repeat .. only, the slams.
2) Everest is the highest mountain but mountain lovers know that it is not the only mountain on earth.
There are many important and beautiful mountains ranges such as Andes, Dolomites, Rocky Mountains, Alps, Pyrenees, many mythical isolated mountains such as Ayers Rock or Fuji or Mt. Ventoux.
And many many others.
It's it is conceivable that a person not interested in the mountains knows only Everest, but a mountain "fans" ...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I am gratified that Laver at least mentioned other tournaments.
Laver has also referred to Wimbledon as a 'kind of' world championship. I strongly disgree. Perhaps that figuratively had some validity back in the 60s, though I imagine USO officials might dispute any such an assertion.
Last edited:
Enceladus
Legend
I don't rate the success and size of tennis players just according to the number of GS titles - weeks on No. 1, the number of YE1, WTF titles, the number of ATP titles, I take all of this into account.
frodobaggins
Rookie
The only reason Navratilova might come into GOAT debates a bit before Court (although neither do much, it is pretty much all Graf and Serena these days) is Court's unpopularity, even more now with the whole homophobia thing. It has nothing to do with merit or winnings.
Enceladus
Legend
Helen Wills also won more GS singles tournaments than Navratilova and is not rated as a better player. Court has won most of its titles before professionalizing tennis, and AO (11 of 24 GS singles titles) was had weak quality at her time, so in GOAT debates it is placed behind trio Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Greatest vs. Best.
Not that you can't be the greatest with less Slams, but it's just easier to be the GOAT if you have the most Slams. If that makes sense.
European football can be manipulated by officiating to the same if not greater degree than basketball. I mean, the 1990 World Cup Final is the biggest farce in sport history to be honest given it's gravity. So in that context being the more accomplished player over a long run as Messi and Ronaldo holds a lot of water. And YET it's really damn hard to consider either the GOAT on the mountain without any World Cups or in Ronaldo's case no even a Finals appearance. Call it unfair if you will but it's not like Ronaldo, Zidane, Beckenbauer were mediocre outside of World Cup competition, they were phenomenal club players but they also parlayed that into World Cup success and not just one time.
So yeah, Ronaldo and Messi are just recency bias. Can't be GOATs.
Not that you can't be the greatest with less Slams, but it's just easier to be the GOAT if you have the most Slams. If that makes sense.
European football can be manipulated by officiating to the same if not greater degree than basketball. I mean, the 1990 World Cup Final is the biggest farce in sport history to be honest given it's gravity. So in that context being the more accomplished player over a long run as Messi and Ronaldo holds a lot of water. And YET it's really damn hard to consider either the GOAT on the mountain without any World Cups or in Ronaldo's case no even a Finals appearance. Call it unfair if you will but it's not like Ronaldo, Zidane, Beckenbauer were mediocre outside of World Cup competition, they were phenomenal club players but they also parlayed that into World Cup success and not just one time.
So yeah, Ronaldo and Messi are just recency bias. Can't be GOATs.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
This is a major factor.
frodobaggins
Rookie
Wills and Lenglen are underrated since they played in the 20s and everyone assumes anyone who played back then sucked. Same reason Tilden is underrated. There is nothing a player from the 20s or 30s could ever do to be recognized as GOAT. If they won 100 slams people would even turn that around as further proof how bad the competition was and disregard it.
I agree with you that Navratilova is generally regarded 3rd (a distant 3rd but still 3rd) to most in GOAT debates behind Serena and Graf, but no way should she actually be over Court. Her achievements pale next to Court's, especialy being 6 singles slams behind and even behind in combined singles/doubles slams which is Martina's best argument against most people but against Court she does not even have that. As for competition and lowballing Court in this comparision for that, dont make me laugh by even suggesting Martina dominated in a strong era, to say most of the 80s was dire would be a massive understatement. Frankly Graf being over Court is even questionable, especialy considering the Parche asterisk to her career which I usually dont like to get into but has to be atleast as big or a bigger asterisk as the Australian Open if one must insist on degrading Court for that. I probably have Serena over Court at this point, but even in this comparision, if it were just achievements and numbers alone, Court probably comes out ahead. Now you may feel Martina is better than Court too despite her significantly weaker achievements, which is fine, but if you think the respective popularity of the players do not play into things and how they are viewed by the masses you refer to you are delusional.
It makes absolute sense. 'Counting slams' is a lazy man's method to determine this. It does not make the answer wrong simply because the proof to the answer you get takes only one step. It means that no depth, no analysis, no nuance can be allowed in the process, because there is always someone who does not have the time, the inclination, or the brainpower to both commit to do more, and the capacity to do more than just count majors. The simple argument and the simplistic argument mirror each other when all one does is count majors. It has the advantage of being incredibly convenient and user friendly but it takes an obstinance in temperament to consistently and tenaciously deny oneself the temptation to validate any premise or argument outside that simple box set.
The reverse means its a little harder to establish greatness with fewer majors, because the audience of one's case has to be willing and able to embrace all the depth, analysis and the nuance and the premises in the more complicated argument that gets one there - and that will preclude some people each step along the way. To embrace or argue more than 24>18, also requires a little humility, because it means this onion of analysis/ nuance will always have layers one has not peeled away, information one has not acquired. Thus there will always be someone else who done more, acquired more, someone who will have traveled further down this path.
LOL If you want to stay the smartest guy in the room all the time, variables are not allies. Its best to count majors and leave it at that.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Well stated.
Last edited:
My problem has always been that I really do like to be the smartest guy in the room, but I end up feeling like the dumbest guy in the room until I take the leap and admit that variables really do matter, especially the ones that guarantee I won't ever be the guy to solve the problem on the blackboard with an impressed classroom full of admirers watching in awe.
I hate variables. I hate algebra, but more than that, I hate feeling like that cliché middle schooler jock insisting that algebra is not 'relevant' to my dreams of being a football star. So write the new problem on the board and I will struggle.
Last edited:
"Most"? That is not the consensus view.
It is not the fault of Court that so many international tennis stars decided to skip the Aussie when she was a dominant player.
Who would spend a fortune to travel to Australia only to get whupped by the dominant star of the era? A waste of time and money.
The absence of those players must be rated as a concession.
suwanee4712
Professional
I'm guilty of this kind of thinking. As a kid I believed that tournaments like Family Circle Cup, WCT Masters, and the Italian Open were prestigious in their own right. But I always felt the tour really was a series of setups culminating in a grand slam tournament. For example, the purpose of playing the Canadian Open, a grand old title that anyone should covet, was mostly about prepping for the U.S. Open. The same with playing Sydney, Queens Club, or Monte Carlo. That way of thinking, right or wromg, always stuck with me.
However, I think the truly great players understood that losing in Dallas or Tokyo was just as unacceptable as losing in Paris or Melbourne. Losing, if tolerated, is learned just as winning is learned.
However, I think the truly great players understood that losing in Dallas or Tokyo was just as unacceptable as losing in Paris or Melbourne. Losing, if tolerated, is learned just as winning is learned.
Its odd. I agree with your premise, but am constantly amazed by exceptions to the rule. I know of too many great players that manage a LOT of indifferent tennis, or even some strategic tanks in their professional careers and swear they provided some nice early round practice, and a loss so that 'peak' performance was still a tournament away. Lendl did this. McEnroe did this. Serena can go from a series of crappy results to glorious in no time. Its almost like a newfound method to extend a career passed physical or mental burnout , is to have fewer big matches in finals outside the majors in your 20's. I think it borders on unprofessional not to support these other venues and every match you play in them with the same energy and passion as you bring to the big boys. Those fans do not deserve to be gifted a 3/4 effort, and intensity level so you can save your real 'peak' for two weeks hence. They did not pay 'practice' dollars to sit there.
Last edited:
suwanee4712
Professional
I agree. Players owe it to the fans and to themselves to try to win each and every match. And I think many do. But I also feel that beating Steffi or Martina in Miami and trying to beat them in Paris are two completely different things. They up their games for the majors perhaps unconsciously.
Evert might be the exception. That lady would street fight you anytime, anywhere from Wimbledon to Mahwah which partially explains her unparalleled consistency.
I think the men were a little different. It's hard to come up with an exact equivalency to Evert in this regard.
Similar threads
