Yes, we should indeed make some insightful researches.
The most important thing is to analyze the data in an open-minded way, rather than focusing only on the things that cut in favor of one specific player.
Raymond Lee did an analysis, in which he relied on overall tournament wins in a year AND on percentages of won-lost matches. I think this is quite fair.
Can we be honest, Urban? You like Lee’s article not because it’s objective and fair — which it is, for the most part — but rather because it concludes that Rod Laver was the best player of all time. Other objective and fair analyses have reached different conclusions, and you’ve argued against those analyses. For example, Wuornos’s computer rankings, based solely on match results, rank Federer #1.
I feel indebted to Lee, Wuornos, and others for their great efforts. But they haven’t come close to resolving the GOAT debate. Wuornos’s rankings seem skewed in favor of recent players, and Lee’s rankings have problems of their own.
First, Lee equates pro majors (and, at least in some cases, even amateur majors!) with open-era majors — something you yourself do not endorse (“I never said, that pro majors and majors were the same”). Second, Lee subjectively decides which eras he thinks were best and alters the results accordingly: he makes a timeline adjustment that privileges the 1960s relative to the 1920s, but not the 2000s relative to the 1960s. This helps Laver come out ahead of those before him and after him. Maybe this assessment makes sense and maybe it doesn’t, but what’s the point of a “statistical analysis” if the results ultimately get altered to accord with the author’s subjective judgment? Third, Lee names Bjorn Borg the second-greatest player ever -- a conclusion that very few people, probably including you, would agree with. If he's wrong about #2, then why trust him to be right about #1? A specific problem is that Lee overvalues career winning percentages (overall and in majors), so Borg is rewarded for retiring early. Lee also overvalues career tournament titles, privileging players from eras when tournaments were shorter and more plentiful. There are other big problems with Lee’s analysis as well, but I think I’ve written too much about it already.
Elsewhere in these forums, you’ve argued against using formulas and in favor of a “hermeneutical approach.” Unsurprisingly, that was in the context of disputing a formula that failed to rank Laver #1.
I don't get the argument with the Wembley-US pro doubles, that by its frequency it should have been easier than winning doubles in open majors. In ca. 25 years of pro tennis after WWII it was done 5 times by 3 players, in the first 30 years of the open era the Wim-USO double was done quite often, i think 8 times by 5 different players.
Wembley and the U.S. Pro were held in the same year only 17 times after WWII. In some of those 17 years, the double wasn’t even attempted. For example, in 1950 the best two players in the world, Kramer and Segura, both skipped Wembley. In the 12 consecutive years when both tournaments were held — 1956-1967 — the double was achieved 5 times by 3 different players.
(It’s probably also worth mentioning that even in 1966, when Laver had to beat Rosewall in the Wembley final, Laver’s draw before the final was so weak — Barthes and Davies — that the tournament was nearly canceled the next year due to insufficient depth. To my knowledge, no one in the open era has ever talked about canceling Wimbledon or the U.S. Open.)
I never said, that pro majors and majors were the same, but i remain on the standpoint, the the level of competition on the old pro tour was very high, and that these events weren't easy to win.
I agree.
Going by ATP and ITF stats, Laver has an 79,8% resp. 80% win loss record in open era alone, when he was 30-40. Andrew Tas has the best numbers for the overall career. I don't have them at the moment, but from my memory it was something like ca. 1500 matches with 300 losses.
First of all, no one is disputing that Laver was great, and the statistics you cite are among the many that reveal his greatness.
But career winning percentages are not too important in my opinion because they assign heavy weight to a player’s non-peak performance. Let’s say that someone has a horrible losing record from age 17-22, then wins five straight calendar grand slams (20 majors) from age 23-27, then returns to a horrible losing record from age 28-38. I’d call that player the GOAT even if his career winning percentage were very low.
When people cite Laver’s losses as a negative, they’re referring to the fact that he lost a lot in his peak years. His greatest two years were probably 1967 when his record was 94-26, and 1969 when his record was 106-16. By contrast, Federer’s records in 2004-2006 were 74-6, 81-4, and 92-5. And I believe that Tilden went undefeated in 1924, among his other spectacular winning percentages.
I am not arguing that Federer and Tilden are better than Laver. I attribute Laver’s losses primarily to the fact that he had few easy matches: he played the same guys, the best guys, over and over again.
I’m simply saying that the facts cut in different directions. A major point in favor of Laver is that he won the open-era slam, which no one else has ever done. A point against him is that his other signature accomplishments were not as meaningful. The 1962 amateur slam occurred when he wasn’t the world’s best player, and it was also achieved by Budge in 1938 and very nearly by Hoad in 1956. Trabert won 3 out of 4 in 1955, as did Emerson in 1964. By contrast, no one but Federer in the past twenty years has won 3 out of 4 calendar majors, and Federer has done it three different times. Laver’s 1967 pro slam also doesn’t set him apart, because the same feat was accomplished four years earlier by Rosewall. And Laver’s match records in his prime, though explainable, are not pluses.
Tilden, Federer, and all of the others have their own points in favor and against. Tilden lost no major matches for six years (1920-1925), winning six straight Davis Cups and six straight U.S. Championships as well as the only two Wimbledons and the only World [Clay] Court Championship he played during that time. His longevity was also awesome. But he lost 3 out of 4 matches to Johnston in 1922, almost never competed in his prime against the top Europeans on clay, and played in an early era when dominance was achieved by others as well (e.g., Doherty’s undefeated years and Larned’s five straight U.S. Championships). Federer has shattered records with his 20 straight major semis, 14 out of 15 major finals, 11 major wins in four years, and 237 consecutive weeks at #1. But he was never the world’s best player on clay during his dominant run from 2004-2007, unlike Tilden and Laver in their primes.
Urban, I appreciate your enormous knowledge and the respectful tone in which you write. But in GOAT discussions I’ve never seen you refer to anything that would cut against Laver or in favor of someone else. Instead of looking for the truth whatever it might be, you’re just arguing on behalf of your favorite player.
