so i see and read a lot of goat duscussion on the forums these days. lots of goat discussion on mainly federer, nadal, and sampras. from all these talk i wanna know what criterion it takes to be GOAT? when i think about it no one can be goat just because of what goat literally means it should be more like greatest until someone break ur records. all the criterion i can think up to to be goat can be reduced to numbers and records. from all the trends and records in all sports i think its pretty safe to say that eventually some else younger comes along and breaks ur records. sampras had 14 slams in his career federer who was younger came along and won 15 so far is an example. i believe with utmost confidence that there will also come a day that someone will win more slams than whatever number of slams federer ends up with at the end of his career or nadal clay court winning streak will be broken. so in my opinion there can be no criterion for goat and therefore no goat because of the time issue because no can be the greatest forever. what do you guys think? that brings us to the next issue whos more dominant nadal or federer as of today? well first thing comes to mind fed has mor slams but nadal has winning record over fed, but fed this and nadal that this can go on forever. theres so many criterion that could be discussed and some things are too gray to even be discussed because neither of these players have reached the end of their career and also theres an age difference between the two of them. there might come a time when fed retires and nadal is still playing then what?
What are the GOAT Criterion?
- Thread starter benxten
- Start date
Eh?
GOAT means greatest of the time which has passed, not greatest of the time which has yet to pass.
Also, there is no way that Nadal should be discussed as a GOAT contendor. That is premature, although I believe he may be in that position one day.
(And Fed has been more dominant quite clearly [though not so much recently]. Dominance is measured across the whole field, not against one player)
GOAT means greatest of the time which has passed, not greatest of the time which has yet to pass.
Also, there is no way that Nadal should be discussed as a GOAT contendor. That is premature, although I believe he may be in that position one day.
(And Fed has been more dominant quite clearly [though not so much recently]. Dominance is measured across the whole field, not against one player)
drwood
Professional
GOAT:
1. At your prime, could it honestly be said that you could beat anyone else adjusting for technology, etc.
2. Were you consistently the best player in the world (#1) in your era
3. Did you consistently win the biggest matches in your era (i.e. Slams)
Bonus:
- Are you consistently great on all surfaces, or does your game suffer greatly when transferring from one surface to another? (i.e. Lendl on grass, Sampras on clay, Borg on hardcourt)
1. At your prime, could it honestly be said that you could beat anyone else adjusting for technology, etc.
2. Were you consistently the best player in the world (#1) in your era
3. Did you consistently win the biggest matches in your era (i.e. Slams)
Bonus:
- Are you consistently great on all surfaces, or does your game suffer greatly when transferring from one surface to another? (i.e. Lendl on grass, Sampras on clay, Borg on hardcourt)
JeMar
Legend
In order to be the GOAT you must...
1. Won all four majors.
2. Have a complete game.
3. Have a high career winning percentage.
4. Must hit with a one-handed backhand.
5. Must be able to slice well.
6. Must be ranked number one in the world for an extended period of time.
7. Must be called the GOAT by other players.
and...
8. Must be from Switzerland or Australia. Sorry, Petey.
Winning H2H against main rival preferred, but not required!
1. Won all four majors.
2. Have a complete game.
3. Have a high career winning percentage.
4. Must hit with a one-handed backhand.
5. Must be able to slice well.
6. Must be ranked number one in the world for an extended period of time.
7. Must be called the GOAT by other players.
and...
8. Must be from Switzerland or Australia. Sorry, Petey.
Winning H2H against main rival preferred, but not required!
I don't honestly think there's anyone that could do that consistenly. Cos all players have losses in their prime.
drwood
Professional
Come on...this kind of cheapens things (although I agree with #2,6). And H2H is important.
drwood
Professional
Yes, but could the argument be made that that player could consistently beat the best player of other eras? This was the argument made for Sampras as GOAT despite him not even making a French final (which I agreed with)...until Federer came along.
If you couldn't argue that a player could consistently beat others in their prime, they can't be GOAT. This is why McEnroe is never in the conversation...no one believes he could beat Sampras or Federer consistently.
drwood
Professional
Winning all 4 is great, but I don't think its a prerequisite for GOAT, b/c until Federer I thought that Sampras was GOAT, and even if Federer had not won the French this year, I still would have placed him ahead of Sampras.
However, Federer winning all 4 now puts a huge chasm b/t him and people like Sampras...the argument is much simpler now.
JeMar
Legend
A lot of my criteria was nonsense, as a lot of these arguments are. 
Laver and Federer both have really good arguments for being GOAT, but they're very different. This whole GOAT talk is extremely subjective and there's no way to discuss it without resorting to a whole bunch of opinion.
Laver and Federer both have really good arguments for being GOAT, but they're very different. This whole GOAT talk is extremely subjective and there's no way to discuss it without resorting to a whole bunch of opinion.
FedFan_2009
Banned
#1 and only criterium is winning H2H against Nadal.
drwood
Professional
So then James Blake is GOAT? Sheesh...
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
lol 10 char.
i thought goat was greatest of all time. greatest of the time = gott? doesnt sound as good as goat. if everyone has been arguing about being GOTT then my whole post in the first place has been useless = me fail lol
Last edited:
Well yes, "greatest of all time" is the same as the greatest of the time which has currently passed. "all time" in the context of GOAT doesn't include the future.
1.) Must be the best in the world during his prime years (period of 3 or more years) - basically number 1 for a long time.
2.) Must have won multiple tournaments including slams on ALL available surfaces. (if applicable - no slams on carpet yet for instance. but it may change)
There are only 2 *real* claims to the GOAT title that I know of - Laver and Federer.
But, I must make it clear that I don't know too much about pre open era tennis - aka Gonzalez, Tilden, etc.
2.) Must have won multiple tournaments including slams on ALL available surfaces. (if applicable - no slams on carpet yet for instance. but it may change)
There are only 2 *real* claims to the GOAT title that I know of - Laver and Federer.
But, I must make it clear that I don't know too much about pre open era tennis - aka Gonzalez, Tilden, etc.
IMO there can never be a single GOAT......since each candidate raises the bar for others that follow him/her......
as of today the chief candidates for GTDhood would include Laver, Fed.........They would compete for GTD (Greatest to Date) rather than GOAT......who knows we may have others in the future who outdo tha acheievements of Fed, laver etc........GOAThood will never ever just a sinlge stakeholder.....you can argue on the GTD at any given point in time
ubermeyer
Hall of Fame
how could laver be a candidate for GOATness? He has 11 slams only, a far cry from 15
i think the easiest way to put this into a statement is:
laver is the wooden frame goat, and federer is the modern frame goat
when we start using lightsaber rackets, a new GOAT era will began
agree ... 10 Characters
I suggest reading about how the 1960's professional/amateur tours worked.
I know there is always a tendency to live in the present and declare everything one sees as 'the greatest', but that hampers objectivity.
If you look at Laver's resume as an amateur and a professional - and his performance (not only at the Slams - but at the other tournaments), you should be pretty well convinced that he is very easily a candidate for 'GOATness'.
Laver's open Era slam in '69 (at age 31, no less) remains the supreme achievement of the sport - (check out his hard court peformance during the year as well if you don't like the fact that the slams were on hard court slams)
Last edited:
GameSampras
Banned
LOL... Can u get anymore biased? Making up criteria just so Roger can be GOAT, with that little extra, "Oh you dont need a h2h advantage against your main rival." LOL....
Well then I guess I'll add my criteria..
1. You only need 3 of the 4 slams.
2. H2h against your main rival preferred by 6 wins.
3. Need 7 Wimbeldon titles in 8 years.
4. Need a chest full of hairy black hair so when you go bald you have to cut some of the hair off and paste it on your receeding scalp
5. Need a hot blonde D list Movie actress who star'ed in nothing but crappy bombs at the box office as Sonya Blade and the sister of Buffy the Vampire slayer while getting chased around by a supposedly dead fisherman with a hook for a hand
Last edited:
BallzofSkill
Semi-Pro
must have 2 horns, must have hooves, must have 2 siblings that are too stubborn to listen to you when you tell them not to cross a damn bridge...
GameSampras
Banned
THe funny thing about all this is... the Federettes on this board are going to base their criteria ONLY on Fed's achievements.
So if say Roger won the French Open for all those years, everyone here would be saying, " Oh you gotta have 3-4 calendar slams in a row"
And of course if Fed never won the french the criteria would be " Oh the grand slam isnt required but preferred"
I can sit here and make a criteria of, you need to have established yourself in an era under the most polarized conditions like Pete and Andre. So that would take Laver off the list and Fed.
See there is no set criteria for this GOAT debate thus making it kind of pointless and circular really
So if say Roger won the French Open for all those years, everyone here would be saying, " Oh you gotta have 3-4 calendar slams in a row"
And of course if Fed never won the french the criteria would be " Oh the grand slam isnt required but preferred"
I can sit here and make a criteria of, you need to have established yourself in an era under the most polarized conditions like Pete and Andre. So that would take Laver off the list and Fed.
See there is no set criteria for this GOAT debate thus making it kind of pointless and circular really
Last edited:
ubermeyer
Hall of Fame
we are never going to use "lightsaber" rackets with "ultra precision" as some doomsayers say. any fool could see that would ruin the game and nobody would ever allow the game of tennis to become a battle of technologies. don't even try to compare the change between wood and modern rackets to something like this. Right now, tennis is about skill. Sports will never ever become about who has the better equipment.
on a side note: wooden frames are very different from modern frames, but the transition was a positive one
IMO there can never be a single GOAT......since each candidate raises the bar for others that follow him/her......
as of today the chief candidates for GTDhood would include Laver, Fed.........They would compete for GTD (Greatest to Date) rather than GOAT......who knows we may have others in the future who outdo tha acheievements of Fed, laver etc........GOAThood will never ever just a sinlge stakeholder.....you can argue on the GTD at any given point in time
Surely you can understand the fairly simple concept that GOAT means the "greatest of the time which has passed", which is actually the same as "all time". Since, the future isn't really "time" yet given that it hasn't existed.
Greatest of all time......to me denotes past, present and future (some one who's record will most likely remain unsurpassed).....but you are right.....we can only determine what has passed us by......future today is indeterministic......so I'll accept your definition...but just wanted to be clear.....
Nadal&Nike10
Rookie
HAHAHA i like this one. this is funny
Grass_for_cows
Semi-Pro
Ok Sampras on clay sucks, but Lendl on grass and Borg on hardcourt really?
Lendl made two Wimbledon finals, lost to Becker and Cash. For that to constitute your game "suffering greatly" Lendl must've been winning every other major on triple bagels.
Btw Lendl is a natural on grass, except it's when he's playing golf.
Borg won titles on hardcourt and was runner up twice (3?) on the US Open hardcourt. And it's arguable that the ancillary conditions (night games, crowd, NYC, airplanes, season-long fatigue, self-fulfilling jinx) played as great a role in his not winning multiple US Opens as his supposedly poor hardcourt game.
Grass_for_cows
Semi-Pro
Yes you are right Baseline McTennis was the right direction for the game of tennis to take. After all, who wants to see skill and finesse, when you can have some autistic muscle boy chasing after balls.
Lendl actually has more titles on grass than Agassi. And the same number of Wimbledon finals. If he got the privilege of facing a headcase choker like Goran in the final, he'd probably have a Wimbledon title, too. He was at least as good as Agassi on the surface. Shame he never got one.
Fedfan1234
Rookie
First Exclude all prehistoric tennis players like Laver, Borg from participating. They played a different type of tennis and cannot be compared with the new era. Laver was the best of those era's.
The most important things to be considered for the GOAT of the modern era are:
- Good on more than one surface.
- Able to at least win 12 or more grandslams.
- Able to dominate the game for long periods of time (at least 5 or 6 years)
- Able to set(or tie) new records like consecutive weeks at number one.
- Able to win WMB,USOPEN,RG or AO around 5 times
- Win Wimbledon more than once
- Able to win the masters more than 2 times
- Have a very good alround game(Good forehand, backhand, volley, serve, drop shot etc.)
- don't have fans that whine about easy draws or era's
I think these are the main criteria for consideration. except for the last one
After this we have to compare all the records, slam wins in a row, career grand slam etc. Mostly it is just a matter of opinion, Federer on grass versus Sampras is a tie in my book, but on clay and hardcourt I favor Federer. I think most of us can agree on these standards.
The most important things to be considered for the GOAT of the modern era are:
- Good on more than one surface.
- Able to at least win 12 or more grandslams.
- Able to dominate the game for long periods of time (at least 5 or 6 years)
- Able to set(or tie) new records like consecutive weeks at number one.
- Able to win WMB,USOPEN,RG or AO around 5 times
- Win Wimbledon more than once
- Able to win the masters more than 2 times
- Have a very good alround game(Good forehand, backhand, volley, serve, drop shot etc.)
- don't have fans that whine about easy draws or era's
I think these are the main criteria for consideration. except for the last one
After this we have to compare all the records, slam wins in a row, career grand slam etc. Mostly it is just a matter of opinion, Federer on grass versus Sampras is a tie in my book, but on clay and hardcourt I favor Federer. I think most of us can agree on these standards.
drwood
Professional
Please...Ivanisevic was a MUCH better grasscourt player than Cash, and Sampras was a MUCH better grasscourt player than Becker (comparing Agassi's Wimbledon final opponents vs. Lendl's).
Lendl had three chances to win a grass Slam -- 83 Aus final (lost to Wilander), 86 Wimby (lost to Becker), 87 (lost to Cash).
Now, Lendl on grass is much better than Sampras on clay, but lets not get it out of hand...Lendl was not that great on grass.
drwood
Professional
You can't do that...everything else you said was reasonable, but you can't just exclude players if you're going to truly talk about GOAT.
GameSampras
Banned
You cant exclude Pancho, Budge, Laver, Borg etc.
GOAT means Greatest of ALL TIME.. It doesnt mean Greatest since 2003
GOAT means Greatest of ALL TIME.. It doesnt mean Greatest since 2003
World Population...
year millions
1900 1,650
1950 2,519
1955 2,756
1960 2,982
1965 3,335
1970 3,692
1975 4,068
1980 4,435
1985 4,831
1990 5,263
1995 5,674
2000 6,070
2005 6,454
Jul. 1, 2008 6,707
How many players were competiting on the tour back then. How many countries were even playing tennis and competing?
GameSampras
Banned
You totally ignore my point. Laver DO have an impressive resume, but how many players was he competing against?
The population today’s is almost double during Laver’s era. It save to say there’s twice as many players competing today, if not more than back then. Now let say we randomly take 50% of the total players from the current atp tour. Wouldn’t the field be drastically depleted with talented players? There might not be a federer, nadal or Nole being around.
Ever heard of a thing called tennis boom? I think there weren't never as many tennis players all over the world than in the 70s, when tennis really exploded. Tennis was a first rate sport then in the US, on par with baseball, or football, more popular than ice hockey or golf. The entrance in Davis Cup had over 100 countries (and that long before the diffusion of the Soviet Union). The 1972 US open had a 156 men draw, they had to play prelimenary rounds to get a field of 128. One of these prelimenary matches pitted some young fellow named Borg against someone named Emerson. There were some WCT and major finals that drew more than 22 million viewers on NBC.
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
It means, try to do what Federer has done!
Similar threads
- FedererWinsWimbledon2014
- General Pro Player Discussion
