The only 2 trophies that matter and which determine the GOAT

B

Blocker

Professional
Let's be real hey.


=1) Wimbledon and the YE#1 trophy

Or

1) Wimby
2) YE#1 trophy

Or

1) YE#1 trophy
2) Wimbledon


You can place these 2 any which way you like. But when you talk tennis to the non general tennis fan, the question they will usually ask the most is "so who is the number 1" or "who is the Wimbledon champion".

No one asks "so who is the reigning FO champion". Or the USO. Or the AO. It's who is the Wimbledon champion or who is the number 1.

Wimbledon, the most important event in the world. YE#1, the world champion determined over a whole season. That's it, that's all you need. Who cares about Monte Carlo or IW or the FO/USO? Honestly if all you ever won was a USO or FO who is going to remember you? Rios will be remembered because he was a year ending world champion albeit he never won a slam. And if you win Wimbledon you will always be remembered as a Wimbledon champion.

I've decided to rank the top 2 GOATs for these, the 2 most important trophies in tennis, because this is where the true greatness lies. The top 2 readily come to mind. But please feel free to round out the top 10. Here are the top 2:

1) The GOAT: Sampras, 13

2) Runner-up GOAT: Federer, 12

That is all.
 
Blocker said:
Let's be real hey.


=1) Wimbledon and the YE#1 trophy

Or

1) Wimby
2) YE#1 trophy

Or

1) YE#1 trophy
2) Wimbledon


You can place these 2 any which way you like. But when you talk tennis to the non general tennis fan, the question they will usually ask the most is "so who is the number 1" or "who is the Wimbledon champion".

No one asks "so who is the reigning FO champion". Or the USO. Or the AO. It's who is the Wimbledon champion or who is the number 1.

Wimbledon, the most important event in the world. YE#1, the world champion determined over a whole season. That's it, that's all you need. Who cares about Monte Carlo or IW or the FO/USO? Honestly if all you ever won was a USO or FO who is going to remember you? Rios will be remembered because he was a year ending world champion albeit he never won a slam. And if you win Wimbledon you will always be remembered as a Wimbledon champion.

I've decided to rank the top 2 GOATs for these, the 2 most important trophies in tennis, because this is where the true greatness lies. The top 2 readily come to mind. But please feel free to round out the top 10. Here are the top 2:

1) The GOAT: Sampras, 13

2) Runner-up GOAT: Federer, 12

That is all.
Click to expand...
Argh the ramblings of a soccer follower who equates all sport to the English game of football and thinks there is the league champion, equating that to the year end no1 and the fa cup equating that to wimbledon.

Gotta feel sorry for these people who have no understanding of the history of tennis. Some of u may have the time to educate this child sadly I dont
 
It's true.... Winning Wimbledon trumps all else. Think about it..... Borg, Sampras, Federer... they are all largely remembered by the world because of their numerous wimbledon championships. Even look back at Boris Becker.... he won 6 GS titles (3 were wimbledon titles.) People recall his Wimbledon championships and not much else.

The US Open and French Open come in a tie for 2nd/3rd. The Australian is a distant 4th. The year end championships are basically an unknown unless you are a diehard tennis follower like most on this fourm.
 
QuadCam said:
It's true.... Winning Wimbledon trumps all else. Think about it..... Borg, Sampras, Federer... they are all largely remembered by the world because of their numerous wimbledon championships. Even look back at Boris Becker.... he won 6 GS titles (3 were wimbledon titles.) People recall his Wimbledon championships and not much else.

The US Open and French Open come in a tie for 2nd/3rd. The Australian is a distant 4th. The year end championships are basically an unknown unless you are a diehard tennis follower like most on this fourm.
Click to expand...
Nobody is disputing Wimbledons status bt the OP said the year end ranking was the only other thing that mattered! Most people won't be able to list the last 10 year end no.1s in order but most will be able to recite all the major winners probably all the way back to 2003
 
Let's be real here. A lot of old timers can't let the past go and wish, against all evidence, that the rest of the world agree with them. But they don't

All slams are important.
YE1 is important
Weeks at #1 is important
Masters are important and they are getting more important over time.
 
GabeT said:
Let's be real here. A lot of old timers can't let the past go and wish, against all evidence, that the rest of the world agree with them. But they don't

All slams are important.
YE1 is important
Weeks at #1 is important
Masters are important and they are getting more important over time.
Click to expand...
Agree with most of that but not convinced the no.1 ranking defines greatness. Players want to get there but Id argue that masters 1000s would mean more to most players. U can get to no.1 without winning anything . It's a measure of consistency more than anything
 
Once you get to elite status, all you strive for is Slam wins. Your entire schedule is designed to peak for 4 tournaments. That means YE and world ranking matter little. Accolades and sponsors dollars and history are based solely on Slam victories in tennis.
 
It's always seemed to me that Roland Garros and Wimbledon were the most prestigious and important to the players themselves. All the clay courters hardly give a damn about Wimbledon but are focused on the French.

US Open used to seem more important when there were good Americans. I would say its on par with the Australian in terms of player regard.
 
GabeT said:
Let's be real here. A lot of old timers can't let the past go and wish, against all evidence, that the rest of the world agree with them. B
Click to expand...
I know, it is super annoying!

And it is with everything sports, music, movies, everything is supposed to be better in their good old 'golden' times.

:D
 
Last edited:
punterlad said:
Nobody is disputing Wimbledons status bt the OP said the year end ranking was the only other thing that mattered! Most people won't be able to list the last 10 year end no.1s in order but most will be able to recite all the major winners probably all the way back to 2003
Click to expand...
This pretty much. Only diehard fans would know who ended as year end #1
 
QuadCam said:
It's true.... Winning Wimbledon trumps all else. Think about it..... Borg, Sampras, Federer... they are all largely remembered by the world because of their numerous wimbledon championships. Even look back at Boris Becker.... he won 6 GS titles (3 were wimbledon titles.) People recall his Wimbledon championships and not much else.

The US Open and French Open come in a tie for 2nd/3rd. The Australian is a distant 4th. The year end championships are basically an unknown unless you are a diehard tennis follower like most on this fourm.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure people recall Becker because he coach Djokovic and not much else. Ah no I forgot he was a womanizer.
 
The downplay of the #1 ranking is hilarious. Being the best and being #1 are pretty much synonymous, muppets downplay being #1. No one who wasn't #1 for an extended period of time can be the GOAT - the #1 ranking tells you who was the best of that year and if you extend it across a period it tells you who's era it was.
 
NatF said:
The downplay of the #1 ranking is hilarious. Being the best and being #1 are pretty much synonymous, muppets downplay being #1. No one who wasn't #1 for an extended period of time can be the GOAT - the #1 ranking tells you who was the best of that year and if you extend it across a period it tells you who's era it was.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is with year end number 1, when used over and above total weeks at number 1. the latter to me is the second most important metric in a goat resume. and it's not AT ALL far below total number of majors....
 
The problem with using ranking statistics is that you're essentially double-counting. Your ranking reflects your achievements (and favors concentrated achievements). Why use rankings when you're already evaluating them by their achievements? You'd basically be rewarding concentration of achievements. Not achievements.
 
Last edited:
The_18th_Slam said:
The problem with using ranking statistics is that you're essentially double-counting. Your ranking reflects your achievements (and favors concentrated achievements). Why use rankings when you're already evaluating them by their achievements? You'd basically be rewarding concentration of achievements. Not achievements.
Click to expand...

Because ranking reflects how well you do compared to your peers. And surely being better than your peers is the mark of a great player.
 
The US Open, Wimbledon, and the final ranking always mattered the most to me. But even to limit it to those three things is pretty short-sighted imo.
 
TupeloDanger said:
Nobody cares about the mythical year end champion. At all.

The history of tennis is the history of the French, Wimbledon, and the U.S. Open. All else is trivia.
Click to expand...

True; historically, like golf, the general public has always know about the four majors, not just one. They were also aware that the majors were the jewels in the tennis crown--that crown being the Grand Slam. No one asks about year end rankings and certainly not a year end event. Moreover,it does not take a number one player to win the most important events--the majors.
 
total weeks at #1 is very important (although I value peak play over consistency to determine greatness) but YE #1 is mostly an exercise in arbitrary end points.
 
NatF said:
Because ranking reflects how well you do compared to your peers.
Click to expand...
But so do tournament results, which is what rankings are based on.

You could say Player A was better than Player B in 2015 by looking at their rankings. Rankings are actually a reflection of their tournament results. So you're basically saying Player A was better than Player B going by their tournament results in 2015. By the same token, why can't you say Player A is better than Player B, overall, by looking solely at their tournament results? Why base it on a dependent intermediary like rankings?
 
Last edited:
The_18th_Slam said:
But so do tournament results, which is what rankings are based on.

You could say Player A was better than Player B in 2015 by looking at their rankings. Rankings are actually a reflection of their tournament results. So you're basically saying Player A was better than Player B going by their tournament results in 2015. By the same token, why can't you say Player A is better than Player B, overall, by looking solely at their tournament results? Why base it on a dependent intermediary like rankings?
Click to expand...

Yu don't see the value in being the best player in the world, in being top of your profession? Strange attitude. Yes ranking is a reflection of tournament results but it's also an achievement in itself. The tour is a constant competition against your contemporaries, in some ways I see it as one long competition and a means of getting to #1. I think we just have a titanic difference in views, I think we can agree to disagree.
 
NatF said:
Yu don't see the value in being the best player in the world, in being top of your profession? Strange attitude.
Click to expand...
I do, but the 12-month ATP ranking system is arbitrary, set in place more for seeding purposes than anything else. As for the ITF rankings, that's just the opinion of a few people. Why follow ranking systems decided by someone else when I can think of a better system myself? And my system is simple:

1. Best tournament results over a 12-month period: you're the best player of the year.
2. Best tournament results over all time: you're the best player ever.

Consistent and self-sufficient. What you're suggesting is something like this:

1. Best tournament results over a 12-month period: you're the best player of the year.
2. Best tournament results and ranking results over all time: you're the best player ever.

Don't you see the inconsistency in what you're putting forward? Why are your standards for all time different to your standards for a 12-month stretch?

Yes ranking is a reflection of tournament results but it's also an achievement in itself. The tour is a constant competition against your contemporaries, in some ways I see it as one long competition and a means of getting to #1. I think we just have a titanic difference in views, I think we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I see the tour as a competition to get the best results. Once you do that, the rankings will take care of themselves (by their arbitrary standards).
 
The_18th_Slam said:
I do, but the 12-month ATP ranking system is arbitrary, set in place more for seeding purposes than anything else. As for the ITF rankings, that's just the opinion of a few people. Why follow ranking systems decided by someone else when I can think of a better system myself? And my system is simple:

1. Best tournament results over a 12-month period: you're the best player of the year.
2. Best tournament results over all time: you're the best player ever.

Consistent and self-sufficient. What you're suggesting is something like this:

1. Best tournament results over a 12-month period: you're the best player of the year.
2. Best tournament results and ranking results over all time: you're the best player ever.

Don't you see the inconsistency in what you're putting forward? Why have different standards for all time as opposed to a 12-month stretch?

I see the tour as a competition to get the best results. Once you do that, the rankings will take care of themselves (by their arbitrary standards).
Click to expand...

A career is a collection of years and yearly results, obviously ranking in those years would be a factor in the career but not when looking granularly at individual years. There's no inconsistency at all. besides that ournaments change in prestige, new ones emerge, formats evolve and change. You can't simply count tournament results across all era's, where as in every year there is at least a player who was #1 at the end of it.
 
NatF said:
A career is a collection of years and yearly results, obviously ranking in those years would be a factor in the career but not when looking granularly at individual years.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it's obvious. You're making a choice to see a career as a collection of years and yearly results. I'm making the choice to see a career as a collection of tournaments and tournament results. My choice is consistent, whether it's over a span of 3 months,12 months, or 12 years. Your choice isn't.

There's no inconsistency at all.
Click to expand...
But there is. Your standards for judging a player over a 12-month span is different to your standards for judging a player over 12 years. That is the very definition of inconsistency.

besides that ournaments change in prestige, new ones emerge, formats evolve and change. You can't simply count tournament results across all era's
Click to expand...
I never said that's what I do. Back in the '70s, I value a YEC title more than I do an AO title. Right now, I value an AO title over a WTF title. How you weigh and assign values to different tournaments across eras is not an easy answer, and I may never be able to answer it. But that doesn't make it any less right.

where as in every year there is at least a player who was #1 at the end of it.
Click to expand...
So you're just taking the easy way out. Because it's easy. Not because it's right.
 
The_18th_Slam said:
I don't see how it's obvious. You're making a choice to see a career as a collection of years and yearly results. I'm making the choice to see a career as a collection of tournaments and tournament results. My choice is consistent, whether it's over a span of 3 months,12 months, or 12 years. Your choice isn't.

But there is. Your standards for judging a player over a 12-month span is different to your standards for judging a player over 12 years. That is the very definition of inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Why do the standards for a year and a career need to be the same? A year is not a career, they are not analogous. Not to mention ranking is determined per 12 months so the ranking results would only come at the end anyway after tournament results. I absolutely would consider the ranking result at the end of a 12 month period a notable achievement to be added up/considered at the end of a career.

The issue is the way you structured your interpretation of my view not my view itself.

So you're just taking the easy way out. Because it's easy. Not because it's right.
Click to expand...

No I said agree to disagree because I find your point of view completely nonsensical and don't really care enough to try and convince you otherwise. The luxury of conducting this discussion over the internet is that if I want to cut it short I can. I have no obligation to humour you.
 
NatF said:
The downplay of the #1 ranking is hilarious. Being the best and being #1 are pretty much synonymous, muppets downplay being #1. No one who wasn't #1 for an extended period of time can be the GOAT - the #1 ranking tells you who was the best of that year and if you extend it across a period it tells you who's era it was.
Click to expand...

So if you're the year end #1, but you didn't win any of the four slams, does it really hold up that you're the best that year? To me it would mean you couldn't get it done when it counted.

Now, I do think the rankings are important to a degree. Can't be a GOAT if you didn't hit #1 at some point. But I don't think it's the most valuable metric.
 
NatF said:
Why do the standards for a year and a career need to be the same?
Click to expand...
To be consistent.

A year is not a career, they are not analogous.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that a year and a career are analogous. I'm saying that a year and 100 years are analogous. They're both measures of time.

Not to mention ranking is determined per 12 months so the ranking results would only come at the end anyway after tournament results.
Click to expand...
Just like the overall rankings would come per all time. Counting rankings for player evaluation would be like counting seeds for yearly rankings. They're already accounted for.

The issue is the way you structured your interpretation of my view not my view itself.
Click to expand...
There is nothing to interpret. Your system is inconsistent.

No I said agree to disagree because I find your point of view completely nonsensical and don't really care enough to try and convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...
If you didn't care, you didn't have to respond to my post. And your point of view is idiotic because it's not even consistent.

The luxury of conducting this discussion over the internet is that if I want to cut it short I can. I have no obligation to humour you.
Click to expand...
You don't. But when you're posting on a public message board, you should be prepared for people to call you out on your logical inconsistencies. You have different standards for how you judge a player over 12 months and how you judge a player over 12 years. That makes your system inconsistent.
 
falstaff78 said:
Lol would you rather have 10 weeks at number 1, with 2 year ends, or 150 weeks at number 1, but no year ends?
Click to expand...

60s Weed logic is 60s Weed logic.

Because according to him 7 titles and 3 R1 losses are better than 7 titles and 3 RUs.

And, y'know, Sampras was undefeated in RG finals. ;)
 
macattack said:
So if you're the year end #1, but you didn't win any of the four slams, does it really hold up that you're the best that year? To me it would mean you couldn't get it done when it counted.

Now, I do think the rankings are important to a degree. Can't be a GOAT if you didn't hit #1 at some point. But I don't think it's the most valuable metric.
Click to expand...

Weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 are far better indicators of what he is getting at.

But hate and trolling can do funny things ;)
 
YE #1 is pretty overrated.
From a historical perspective it just isn't in the same league as the majors (especially Wimbledon).

Being #1 is great, but since things like the Masters events count more overall than the slams do, it's hard to take the achievement as seriously as the slams themselves.
You could theoretically be #1 with zero slams, and in fact it has happened before.

The other tournaments are nice, and you need more than four events per year to maintain form and the public's interest, but in terms of players' careers, the US Open is the remaining significant event this year.
 
Smasher08 said:
Weeks at #1 and consecutive weeks at #1 are far better indicators of what he is getting at.

But hate and trolling can do funny things ;)
Click to expand...
This too.
You could be #1 for 1/52 weeks and still get the YE #1.
It's putting arbitrary significance on a certain date.

If we are going to hold up #1 stats as important, weeks at #1 are the way to go.
 
Firstservingman said:
This too.
You could be #1 for 1/52 weeks and still get the YE #1.
It's putting arbitrary significance on a certain date.

If we are going to hold up #1 stats as important, weeks at #1 are the way to go.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, the guy who has hauled in the most number of trophies in tennis is this guy:

attachment.php


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
The two most important trophies in tennis
2
Replies
54
Views
6K
Blocker
B
B
Rename the world championship trophy the Pete Sampras Trophy
Replies
27
Views
2K
Deleted member 688153
D
P
Rank and Rate the Grand Slam Trophies
Replies
15
Views
6K
Jackuar
Jackuar
weakera
If Novak Djokovic, Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz were playing at the same time...
Replies
7
Views
486
Razer
Razer
demrle
Rafa: "It is a great achievement... I equaled Novak and Roger"
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
demrle
demrle
Back
Top