tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
I understand your point.
By the way, the second seems more relevant to me, objectively.
Why 5 grand slams on 2 surfaces would be more relevant than 2 slams on 3 surfaces anyway ?
To be a GOAT, i think one needs 5+ majors on 2 surfaces ?
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
I understand your point.
By the way, the second seems more relevant to me, objectively.
Why 5 grand slams on 2 surfaces would be more relevant than 2 slams on 3 surfaces anyway ?
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You are measured by how "Great" you are on multiple surfaces and not by "good" on all surfaces
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
if Nadal were to equal Federer's slam count , then i see relevance of these in a tie break situation.
But this is a gaping hole, given that not just Fed , but 2 other players have achieved this and Nadal hasnt , inspite of his large slam count.
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
That would be subjective...
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
"good", Lol
2 grand slams on grass is Great
3 grand slams on Hard is Great
even Fed with his 1 clay GS is a "great" clay player
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
Then there are still plenty of stats Fed has over Nadal. Who at that point is GOAT is still debatable, although obviously you'll find many more in favor of Nadal at that point.
RF20Lennon
Legend
To be GOAT, for me you just need to have most of the records, be consistent and have the best resume. Thats all. And now currently Fed has all that and thats why he is GOAT but that can change soon.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Anyway, Federer right now has 4 more GS, that's a huge number, we should bump this thread in 3 or 4 years.
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
Yeah, see what I mean? You're subjectively putting labels of "good" and "great" on certain achievements, based on your own opinion.
RF20Lennon
Legend
I think what he meant was...if Federer didn't exist Nadal would still have 3 slams on hard but if Nadal didn't exist Federer would have 6 RG's. But then again its giving people slams they didn't win so its debatable.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If he gets 16 with no more in FO and 1 each at the others, I would even consider him as accomplished as Federer, even with 1 short.
Vcore89
Talk Tennis Guru
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
But it all begins with whatever premise you start out with.
If one were to use Nadal as a metric, then things would be vastly different.
It all depends on what a person decides to use as a starting point. Does Laver's 200 titles count, Petes's six years at number one, or Connors 109 titles?
Whenever the criteria is tailored to fit certain players and negate the accomplishments of others then premise is proven to be faulty.
There is no GOAT, they have all done well and people need to just leave it at that.
Thankfully, we don't have a say in history, or it would to be distorted towards our favorite player without taking everyone else's accomplishments into account.
So, while it's fun, it's also pointless.
But a nice way to talk ____ and while away the time
.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
How are they subjective, when it is quantitative and more than one player has achieved it .
It is not something created to demarcate Federer.
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
For me, that would also be the main thing. But 'most of the records' is also somewhat subjective. Which records exactly?
Consistency is great and for me it's also important, but I can understand anyone arguing against its importance too.
If someone can't be bothered to motivate himself for any tournaments outside the GS and loses constantly, but wins every GS tournament for 6 years straight, would he be the GOAT? I don't know, but you could certainly make an argument for it...
Frankly, even if Nadal wins everything there is the next 3 years, gets the weeks #1 record, GS record, YE#1 record and has >20 GS titles, you could still find arguments to call Fed the GOAT. The last argument for people would probably be his fluid, effortless style.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
I know what you mean, but we'll notice something relevant.
How many times federer fans use "if s" when comes the H2H or the GOAT debate ?
I nearly never saw Nadal fans say "if if if" like Fed fans do... think about it (i don't mean you , i'm saying in general
)
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
You were implying that having 4-5 titles on 2 surfaces means you're "great" on multiple surfaces, while having at least 2 on 3 surfaces means you're "good" on 3 surfaces.
How many titles on a surface means "good" or "great" is subjective.
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
But it all begins with whatever premise you start out with.
If one were to use Nadal as a metric, then things would be vastly different.
It all depends on what a person decides to use as a starting point. Does Laver's 200 titles count, Petes's six years at number one, or Connors 109 titles?
Whenever the criteria is tailored to fit certain players and negate the accomplishments of others then premise is proven to be faulty.
There is no GOAT, they have all done well and people need to just leave it at that.
Thankfully, we don't have a say in history, or it would to be distorted towards our favorite player without taking everyone else's accomplishments into account.
So, while it's fun, it's also pointless.
But a nice way to talk ____ and while away the time
^This. Good post and exactly what I meant as well. You can skew any stats in favor of certain players.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Slow surfaces
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
But it all begins with whatever premise you start out with.
If one were to use Nadal as a metric, then things would be vastly different.
It all depends on what a person decides to use as a starting point. Does Laver's 200 titles count, Petes's six years at number one, or Connors 109 titles?
Whenever the criteria is tailored to fit certain players and negate the accomplishments of others then premise is proven to be faulty.
There is no GOAT, they have all done well and people need to just leave it at that.
Thankfully, we don't have a say in history, or it would to be distorted towards our favorite player without taking everyone else's accomplishments into account.
So, while it's fun, it's also pointless.
But a nice way to talk ____ and while away the time
The main aspect that distinguishes Tennis from other sports is the variety of surfaces it is played upon. Each surface requires different skills and that is the true test that separates the good from the great.
The greatest are the ones who have most success on a variety of surfaces.
if someone had 4 majors at each one of the slams and another one has something like Federer, I would rate the person with the diversified major as higher than Fed.
What Nadal has shown till date is that he is good on all surfaces . But he is great on just 1 surface. I wish and hope that he becomes a great on hard court as well.
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
Yup, even if Nadal or any other player would surpass Federer in all records, one could still claim that Federer was the greatest player in terms of style.
Suffice to say that the whole GOAT-debate is pointless, though sometimes fun. It stops being fun when certain fans (none so far on this thread luckily) get agressive and feel they HAVE to be right on who is GOAT and everybody HAS to agree with them.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
if several players have achieved it , it is 'good'. If just a few have achieved it, it is great.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
Again, you are stating your opinion here as a fact, which it is not.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Winning at least 2 grand slams on each surface, how many players did that ?
Isn't it Great in your dictionnary?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Several players have achieved more than 2 on A surface.
To be considered 'greatest' , you need records that make you greatest on that surface.
Nadal has the 2 grand slams on every surface, no doubt. but again, the question is not whether Nadal is accomplished on all surfaces . It is how many surfaces can we say Nadal is among the great ?
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
What criteria do you think McEnroe, Wilander, Courier, and many other writers and ex-pros are using?
They know all the stats too.
Why do you think they are backing off the GOAT claim for Federer?
You and I can go back and forth, but the truth is, we don't have an iron in this fire.
The best we could do is go debate for a short time, until it becomes tedious.
I don't think either Federer or Nadal is the GOAT. In fact, I don't think the term can be definitely defined.
But, I am fascinated at how some people are so vested in it. It brings a smile to my face, and when you smile, your whole day is better.
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
Look, I am not trying to pick on you, but you seem to be trying to win an argument, while in reality there is no argument to be won.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Right.
And because the bolded is true, I would never deign to appoint anyone GOAT, because whoever you pick will be lacking in one aspect or the other.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Crisstti
Legend
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
:lol: :lol:
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
Thanks!
Just trying to be a voice of reason in the hope (in vain I'm sure) we'll see fewer GOAT-threads in favor of either Nadal or Federer and a little more variety in subjects
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Indeed, i'm quoting you " each surface requires different skills " = 2 or more grand slams on 3 different surfaces is a GREAT achievement, not a "good" achievement like u are trying to say.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
i like this Chicagodude too
Crisstti
Legend
Maybe, but then Rafa is greater on that surface than Fed is on any. And better on the other ones than Fed is in his weaker one
chicagodude
Hall of Fame
i like this Chicagodude too
Cool, I have fans!
Maybe I can become the GPOAT :-?
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Thanks!
Just trying to be a voice of reason in the hope (in vain I'm sure) we'll see fewer GOAT-threads in favor of either Nadal or Federer and a little more variety in subjects
We can only hope.
There's been an influx of these threads since the USO.
It doesn't matter what other creative threads are started, all threads lead to GOAT.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Maybe, but then Rafa is greater on that surface than Fed is on any. And better on the other ones than Fed is in his weaker one
The argument is not who is good on their weaker surface. It is who is greatest on more than 1 surface.
C
chandu612
Guest
I am sorry, how else do you do it? Read the OP. you have to troll a troll.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Yes, Nadal has played better on multiple surfaces, but is greatest only on 1. Whereas three other players , are greatest on 2 of 3 surfaces.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
There is no argument, it is a debate. I think what distinguishes the elite is the fact that they were great on more than 1 surface and i think that is the hallmark of the greatest player.
C
chandu612
Guest
Oh did I hurt you??lol
Now you know why I assumed you are a girl.
Now stop feeding the troll posts with Fed bias and all the while believing you dont have a bias, you are not trolling and that you are balanced poster. Or else somebody's gonna get hurt bad (if you heard that joke before)
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
The basis is there is someone called 'greatest'. we cannot define a hypothetical basis which no one has achieved and keep extending your goal post.
NatF
Bionic Poster
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
And that is precisely the issue here. He has won a boatload, but still is not greatest on more than 1 surface. he is a 'also ran' on the remaining 2 surfaces.
Similar threads
