What's your criteria for All-Time Great? GOAT?

powerangle

powerangle

Legend
What's your criteria for a player to be an All-Time Great? What about to be in the GOAT discussion?

For me...

All-Time Great

1) Win at least 6 slams
2) Be dominant for at least a couple seasons (more slams/longevity in lieu of
complete dominance is fine)
3) Can give GOATs a run for their money/beat them on some big occasions (if
exist in their era)
4) At least 30+ titles


To be in GOAT discussion

1) Win at least 10 slams
2) Be undisputed #1 for at least 4 seasons
3) Win at least 3 of the 4 slams, otherwise dominant in at least 2 of the 4 slams
4) Needs to hold a significant record in at least two areas (weeks at #1,
number of slams, most wins at a particular slam, etc)
5) Needs either longevity or set "record pace" (age-related)
6) Needs at least a debatable "GOAT" shot (serve, forehand, volley...etc), "GOAT" footwork/speed,
or "GOAT" mental strength/consistency
7) At least 60+ titles


These are just a general outline for me. One can be lacking a bit in one stat but has to "make it up" in another stat.

What about for you guys? 8)
 
Last edited:
ATG - Nadal's year end achievements
GOAT- Nadal's achievements upon retirement =D



j/k but wow u put a lotta thought into it! Because it would be too time consuming to look it up, what players, past and present fall into your categories rite now?
 
meg0529 said:
ATG - Nadal's year end achievements
GOAT- Nadal's achievements upon retirement =D



j/k but wow u put a lotta thought into it! Because it would be too time consuming to look it up, what players, past and present fall into your categories rite now?
Click to expand...

Hehe...it actually didn't take that long. I guess I should have stated "Open Era" as pre-Open era would muddle things up a bit...

Right now, in Open Era..

All-Time Great
Becker
Edberg
Wilander
Agassi
Lendl
Connors
McEnroe
Nadal

GOAT Discussion
Laver
Borg
Sampras
Federer


Same list as everyone else's probably :-P
I just put it into words some of the elements for me (like needing a GOAT shot/game element as well as holding a couple records of some sort, in addition to career stats).
 
Laver shouldn't be in GOAT discussion, he only won 4-5 slams in open era.

For me the current candidates for GOAT discussion are Fed/Borg/Sampras

Lendl/McEnroe/Connors/Agassi/Nadal are all time greats obviously.

Nadal can be safely included in GOAT category if he wins 2 more RG and 1 more wimbledon.
 
For women:

All time Great in singles:

-Win atleast 5 slams
-Win atleast 1 of Wimbledon or the U.S Open
-Be the consensus best player in the World for atleast 2 years, joint or seperate
-Show consistency and longevity as one of the top players in the World

Recent women who qualify- Serena, Venus, Henin, Hingis, Graf, Seles


To be in GOAT discussion:

-Win atleast 12 slams
-Win Wimbledon and the U.S Open atleast 3 times each
-Be the consensus best player in the World atleast 5 years, joint or seperate
-Be a force near the top of the game for over a decade

Female GOAT candidates- Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Serena, King, Court



For men now:

All time Great in singles:

-If an Open Era player then win atleast 6 slams. If Pre Open Era player win atleast 6 slams in "amateur" and "pro" slams combined.
-Win atleast 2 out of French, Wimbledon, or U.S Open
-Win atleast 1 of Wimbledon or U.S Open multiple times
-Spent parts of atleast 2 years ranked #1
-Be the consensus #1 for a year atleast once.
-Spend atleast 6 years ranked inside the top 3.

Recent men who qualify- Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Nadal, Federer, Sampras, Lendl


To be in GOAT discussion:

-If Open Era player win atleast 14 slams.
-If Pre Open Era player win atleast 12 slams in "amateur" and "pro" slams combined
-Be completely dominant at atleast 2 of the French, Wimbledon, or U.S Opens
-Be the consensus best player in the World for atleast 4 years, joint or seperate.
-Be near the top of the game over a decade.
-Perform with consistency, with no more than one brief slump where you fall out of the Worlds top 3 during a long period of time.

Mens GOAT candidates at this point- Sampras, Federer, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Tilden, Budge
 
Along with many of the criteria in relation to big title count that has been mentioned, I like surface streaks, win streaks and periods with very few losses. So basically just periods of dominance, I guess. But I supplement this with very subjective criteria which pretty much revolves around how good a player's game is, especially when they're playing their best.

I'm not sure I could consider a player GOAT if they didn't have some respectable surface streaks and overall win streaks or lengthy periods with very few losses. Also, if their best game didn't impress me enough, I'd be reluctant to call them GOAT. (I should mention that I also wouldn't consider someone GOAT if they hadn't won many slams or were wildly inconsistent over the years).

Some of it is subjective stuff, but counting titles just doesn't do it for me.
 
GOAT Concept is Flawed...

A tennis GOAT can't logically exist as it's completely subjective. In addition, there are too many variables on tour throughout the years that would affect comparing the results from different eras. Variables such as surfaces, equipment technology (racquets, strings), court technology (Cyclops, Shotspot), fitness, nutrition, sports psychology, tournament importance/hierarchy, etc. The list goes on and on (and on further still).

It's like stating the 2010 Corvette is the GOAT of all Corvettes simply because it's superior in 95% of every category when compared to those which came before it. Compared to a 1966 Corvette, it's much more technologically advanced, more refined, exhibits better performance, lower emissions, etc.)... But all those things don't make it great.

You can only compare it to the cars of its own era and even then you must have specific, objective criteria which is weighted in order to determine which was actually better (e.g. braking distance, quarter mile time, 0-60, mechanical longevity, etc.)

The best we can hope for on this subject is which tennis player was more accomplished compared to his/her peers (via GS titles, MS titles, overall number of titles, career win%, DC wins, Olympic GM's, etc.)

:)
 
Last edited:
vortex1 said:
Laver shouldn't be in GOAT discussion, he only won 4-5 slams in open era.

For me the current candidates for GOAT discussion are Fed/Borg/Sampras

Lendl/McEnroe/Connors/Agassi/Nadal are all time greats obviously.

Nadal can be safely included in GOAT category if he wins 2 more RG and 1 more wimbledon.
Click to expand...

dumb_and_dumber_ver1.jpg
 
The most important criterion is potential. That makes Gulbis the undisputable GOAT. I think he has the potential to win at least 10 Cincies.
 
atm the GOAT is surely Federer. But even with that said with Nadal's current results, he is more than capable of possibly becoming a GOAT in the future.
 
Someone with a few slam wins - including victories over the two most successful players in slams ever to win those slams. I would also consider an all time great to have had a good career even though they had many injuries/commitment problems etc. :)

Lol j/k.

Someone who doesn't get on court coaching.
Someone who has won 5 slams.
Someone who has a respectable masters record.
Someone who is able to beat tough players to win their slams.
Someone who is consistent.
Someone who is able to challenge the top guys around him week. in and week out
 
Bud said:
A tennis GOAT can't logically exist as it's completely subjective. In addition, there are too many variables on tour throughout the years that would affect comparing the results from different eras. Variables such as surfaces, equipment technology (racquets, strings), court technology (Cyclops, Shotspot), fitness, nutrition, sports psychology, tournament importance/hierarchy, etc. The list goes on and on (and on further still).
Click to expand...

I hate to do it, but: ^^^^ THIS!
 
Bud said:
A tennis GOAT can't logically exist as it's completely subjective. In addition, there are too many variables on tour throughout the years that would affect comparing the results from different eras. Variables such as surfaces, equipment technology (racquets, strings), court technology (Cyclops, Shotspot), fitness, nutrition, sports psychology, tournament importance/hierarchy, etc. The list goes on and on (and on further still).
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
 
Must be the most dominant player on the tour, which means must not have a losing record against chief rival. That is a very very important criteria.
 
A career slam should be added the list. A complete player prove he can win on any surface and condition.
 
davey25 said:
Female GOAT candidates- Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Serena, King, Court
Click to expand...

Nice try but she’s not close to be there yet. Her stat is worthy to be place in Tier 2 great. Let’s wait until she win 8 more GS as you predicted on 6/29/2010, then we can talk.
 
In the open era for men, id say atleast six grandslams on atleast two different surfaces. Reach atleast the quarter finals of every slam once. They should be in the top 5 in the rankings for atleast three or four years.

Guys who qualify are Connors, Mac, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goat for men? I say atleast 10 majors, carrear slam, be the best in the world for atleast 4 years.
 
powerangle said:
What's your criteria for a player to be an All-Time Great? What about to be in the GOAT discussion?

For me...

All-Time Great

1) Win at least 6 slams
2) Be dominant for at least a couple seasons (more slams/longevity in lieu of
complete dominance is fine)
3) Can give GOATs a run for their money/beat them on some big occasions (if
exist in their era)
4) At least 30+ titles


To be in GOAT discussion

1) Win at least 10 slams
2) Be undisputed #1 for at least 4 seasons
3) Win at least 3 of the 4 slams, otherwise dominant in at least 2 of the 4 slams
4) Needs to hold a significant record in at least two areas (weeks at #1,
number of slams, most wins at a particular slam, etc)
5) Needs either longevity or set "record pace" (age-related)
6) Needs at least a debatable "GOAT" shot (serve, forehand, volley...etc), "GOAT" footwork/speed,
or "GOAT" mental strength/consistency
7) At least 60+ titles


These are just a general outline for me. One can be lacking a bit in one stat but has to "make it up" in another stat.

What about for you guys? 8)
Click to expand...

Are you setting these rules and then seeing who fits them or making rules based on the accomplishments of who you consider to be an all-time great/GOAT? The latter often leads to introducing bias, but it seems as though you made a good list of the typical characteristics of a great player.
I personally don't believe that there are any set rules that MUST be satisfied for a person to be an all-time great/GOAT, although there are certainly accomplishments that are common among the greatest players in the game.
 
ksbh said:
Must be the most dominant player on the tour, which means must not have a losing record against chief rival. That is a very very important criteria.
Click to expand...

I'd say if you're the most dominant player on tour, then you should not have a losing record against ANYONE..

and while talking of "chief rival", the "chief rival" should be a "chief rival" in the true sense of the word; not someone who went AWOL for the most part....
 
According to your remark, it appears that Federer isn't the GOAT because he has a losing record against Nadal? Please clarify.

fed_rulz said:
I'd say if you're the most dominant player on tour, then you should not have a losing record against ANYONE..

and while talking of "chief rival", the "chief rival" should be a "chief rival" in the true sense of the word; not someone who went AWOL for the most part....
Click to expand...
 
GOAT
~noun
1. Eternal, immutable and carved in stone condition which happens to change every 1/2 weeks.
2. Favourite player of a TT poster.
3. According to many, a player who has the biggest talent ever (no prove necessary) and who will eventually come back from the dead and blow away the whole competition by 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 (and 6-0) because when he’s on he just could sweep God from the court. That is: Marat Safin.

Talent:
~noun
1. A quality that allows a player to being better than the rest, despite the number of matches which that player doesn’t win. [i.e: “Federer won 16 slams but Jean Luc Rodriguez-Hillbilly (sorry, who?) had insane loads of talent”]
2. Ability of making smooth-motioned and good-looking shots, no matter if a high percentage of those shots happens to send the ball to the parking lot.

Talented player:
~noun
1. Favourite player (of a specific TT poster) who doesn’t win as much as that specific TT poster would like to, but he’s still better than the rest.
2. Favourite player (of a specific TT poster) who once did beat a big name, so he proved his superiority for ever and never and that won’t change no matter how many bagels he eats from big names in the future.
 
ksbh said:
According to your remark, it appears that Federer isn't the GOAT because he has a losing record against Nadal? Please clarify.
Click to expand...

No, according to my "criteria", Fed is GOAT. I was simply disputing your criterion which seemed to selectively choose only the "chief rival", as if to imply that you can have a losing record against, say, your 10th best rival?

I understand your intention behind making that the ONLY criterion for GOAT :), but let's be fair so that we can exclude clowns from the GOAT-discussion who sucked 1/3 of the tennis season.
 
ROFL, FR! Well ok, you called my bluff but let me admit I was only trying to rile up some of the Federer boys :)

I've stated it in other threads in the past but maybe you missed ... IMO, Federer has done enough to warrant being called the GOAT! :)

fed_rulz said:
No, according to my "criteria", Fed is GOAT. I was simply disputing your criterion which seemed to selectively choose only the "chief rival", as if to imply that you can have a losing record against, say, your 10th best rival?

I understand your intention behind making that the ONLY criterion for GOAT :), but let's be fair so that we can exclude clowns from the GOAT-discussion who sucked 1/3 of the tennis season.
Click to expand...
 
I'm going to "repost" from the related thread. Here are some of my thoughts on this.

It's not just one thing, but pure slam count is important to consider while analyzing just about everything having to do with that player. So, basically, I tend to look at guys that have amassed at least many slams, say getting near 10 at least. THEN, look at "body of work", quality of chief rivals, surface versatility, as well as intangibles such as mental toughness, etc. in matches. So, when something is this complicated and necessarily subjective and objective at the same time, everything gets thrown in the mix.

Here's my central test though. Say we could have the main candidates, say 8 or 9 players play Round Robin tourneys? Say we have about one a month, with a different surface/venue each month? For example, Jan. RR in Australia, Feb. RR indoors in Germany, June RR on grass at the AELTC (fill in all 12 months and have a real diversity of surfaces and countries too). So, after the year, which player, after going head to head over and over with the other "greatest" rivals, comes out on top? Who has won the most tourneys and probably has the best overall match record as well for the year?

Even after such a year the debate may STILL not be resolved, because I am convinced that when greats play greats, there does not tend to be total domination. You'll see each player with plenty of wins and losses. So, I would try and think about how the following guys would do in that kind of year long, hypothetical scenario, in which each player is playing at a "peak level" when they are not too young, not too old, and in really good physical condition (not Nadal with bad knees, or Federer with a bad back/leg for example).

These would be some of the main guys I would visualize playing in those hypo tourneys: Borg, Federer, Laver, Sampras, Nadal, Rosewall, McEnroe, P. Gonzalez, Connors, and Lendl. Would any one player in essence "sweep" the field. I doubt it VERY MUCH. Each would take their lumps here and there. These guys are just too good. For goodness sakes, it's tough for one player to dominate even some of their peers. These candidates for the "greatest" title are not anything like 99.9% of their peers. They are anomalies in every sense of the word and the one thing they all have in common is that they absolutely hate to lose and love to win. Players like that, who are as talented as the guys above, "fold" to no other player, even other great players. Many are just too smart to let that happen. Guys like Laver and Gonzalez would find ways to win. Most importantly as you do the analysis above, you absolutely MUST equalize for equipment and technology. All of them play in say 1975 conditions, or 1955 conditions, or in 2010 conditions. You can't "mix and match" and make such an analysis work logically.

I gravitate towards 4 prime candidates, in the "top tier" with there being viable arguments that can be made for all four of them. Each has strengths and weaknesses. The four for me, as of today, are Borg, Federer, Laver, and Sampras, with Nadal at about 10 or so already, with a "bullet" next to his name. For me, Nadal could climb the "ranks" and get into the top tier if he has another couple of years like the one he is having now.
 
Agreed but let's not ignore one glaring fact ... Sampras never had his a*rse handed to him on such a regular basis by his chief rival, as Federer has had!

tennis_guru said:
^^^ There is no reason to have Sampras in the Tier 1, he is surpassed by Federer on almost all counts.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed again but then Sampras wasn't beaten on all surfaces at the slams by any rival as Federer has been!

Don't get me wrong ... I rate Federer higher than Sampras but let's not lose perspective. Some of Federer's fans want to place him on a pedestal he doesn't belong to.

tennis_guru said:
Yeah but Sampras chief rival was not 5 years young and the clay GOAT.
Click to expand...
 
ksbh said:
Agreed again but then Sampras wasn't beaten on all surfaces at the slams by any rival as Federer has been!

Don't get me wrong ... I rate Federer higher than Sampras but let's not lose perspective. Some of Federer's fans want to place him on a pedestal he doesn't belong to.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I don't think Federer is so much higher than all the others, but he is higher. But in response to what you said, how could Sampras be beaten on all surfaces by his chief rival when he couldn't get to the final of all surfaces?
 
I agree with Federer getting wacked by his chief rival leaves the door open Big time. However Federer was so so great in 2004-2006. And those years Nadal was an animal in 2005 and 2006. When fed had the game and toughness he was a phenom. I have not seen all round greatness like that ever. Pete on grass and Nadal on clay the only ones close. Sorry 2 the historians no disrespect.
 
Definition of GOAT:

- Player who shouldn't be stuck as 2nd best for years until one of his/her fans stabs the real best with a knife.
 
Criterion for G.O.A.T

Most slam titles won.
Most masters titles won.
Most titles won.
Playing in tough competition.
Winning all 4 slams
Winning the olympics
Winning all four majors in a year or winning the golden slam in a year if possible
Winning record over the tough opponents
Winning record over your closest rival
Not getting dominated on one particular surface
You must be the best on hard
You must be the best on clay
You must be the best on grass
You must be the best on indoor surfaces/carpet etc.
 
Anaconda said:
Criterion for G.O.A.T

Most slam titles won.
Most masters titles won.
Most titles won.
Playing in tough competition.
Winning all 4 slams
Winning the olympics
Winning all four majors in a year or winning the golden slam in a year if possible
Winning record over the tough opponents
Winning record over your closest rival
Not getting dominated on one particular surface
You must be the best on hard
You must be the best on clay
You must be the best on grass
You must be the best on indoor surfaces/carpet etc.
Click to expand...

Those are all good things to consider, but note that we didn't have these "Masters" titles a while back at all, just official events and lots of big money unofficial events as well. Also, I would add grand slam winning percentage and performance at grand slam finals, especially against which opponents? Also, one should consider a player's bad losses as well, whether early or late in a career, but especially at the Grand Slams. How many bad losses are coupled with all the wins? Also, the intangibles, such as athletic ability, stamina, mental toughness, 5 set records. This is a good list above though. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Criteria/Accomplishments for GOAT
Replies
19
Views
2K
roysid
roysid
A
Minimum criteria for GOAT candidate.
Replies
44
Views
2K
Nickzor
N
B
Your top 10 criteria for Goathood
Replies
19
Views
1K
kishnabe
kishnabe
T
Criteria for being in the all time Tier 1
Replies
19
Views
693
xFedal
xFedal
R
G.o.a.t Criteria
Replies
40
Views
4K
Swissv2
Swissv2
Back
Top