Who would you consider greater?

[jg153040]

I'm really struggling with this. Let's say 30 years from now 2 guys break Usain Bolt's record. They are ranked nr. 1 and nr 2. Let's talk about the guy who is nr.2. The same achievement that got Usain Bolt nr.1 today, won't be enough for nr.1 spot 30 years from now.

Would you consider nr.2 player who breaks Bolts record, but is only ranked nr.2 30 years from now, greater than Bolt?

My question is this. In tennis in some eras the same achievement can get you to nr.1, but in some eras that is only good enough for nr.2.

So this means that the same achievements don't have the same value in all eras. They only have value relative to the competition.

I mean Federer maybe with the same level of play at RG could've won more in an era without Nadal. But with his lone RG title he is very low on clay list.

The same is Nadal vs Sampras. Nadal is very low on the goat list because he has so few weeks nr.1. But in Sampras era he could've been ranked more time nr.1 with the same achievement.


The same could be said for a slam. You can be nr.1 with 9.000 points but in some era you can be nr.2 with the same achievement. BUT you can also win a slam without losing a set or win a slam barely scraping through with tough close 5 setters. Different level of domination can win you a slam and nr.1 ranking even though they are both valued the same.

How would you solve this problem? For Federer in clay. Nadal vs Sampras nr. ranking. And for Usain Bolt. Who would you consider greater? I mean I believe that achievements should be valued only relative to your competition.
A person who is nr.1 with 1 slam is as great as a person who is nr.1 with 3 slams in a different era. Otherwise that second ranked guy 30 years from now who also broke Usain record would be considered greater than Bolt and I think this is unfair.

So I guess in the same merit Federer shouldn't be considered greater than Guga. Or Nadal on the same level as Sampras. This is why I consider Connors greater than Nadal for example. Because of his weeks being nr.1. What do you guys think?

 

[Deleted member 3771]

The no 2 in 30 years will be more achieved, but not as great as Bolt, because he didn't dominate his era to the extent that Bolt dominated his era. The #1 in 30 years will have to be as dominant compared to the rest of his peers as Bolt has been to be regarded as great as Bolt.

Sampras won 175% of the slams as the next best in his era, so someone in another era has to better that to be greater.

 

[tennis_pro]

The no 2 in 30 years will be more achieved, but not as great as Bolt, because he didn't dominate his era to the extent that Bolt dominated his era. The #1 in 30 years will have to be as dominant compared to the rest of his peers as Bolt has been to be regarded as great as Bolt.

Sampras won 175% of the slams as the next best in his era, so someone in another era has to better that to be greater.

What am I reading?

So imagine if Agassi stopped playing after 1997 and finished his career with a total of 3 majors. It could've EASILY happened as Agassi himself said he was on the brink of retirement at the time.

This way Sampras would have 14 majors (maybe 15 if you add the 2000 Australian Open) and his next closest rival would have 4 (Courier). Nice rival btw...done in 1993 when Sampras was only getting started.

You might think that Federer to be considered greater than Sampras he'd have to win 44 majors (4x as many as Nadal)? LOL whatever. It's not Federer's problem that Sampras' rivals were so incompetent that no-one could win more than a handful of majors.

 

[tennis_pro]

The difference between the Sampras and Federer era's is that the Federer era had 3 super consistent all-round champions in Federer, Nadal, Djokovic (Murray has been very consistent since 2008 as well) while Sampras faced one inconsistent Agassi so obviously the differential will be higher.

And by inconsistent Agassi I mean really inconsistent Agassi, he was a goner for 4,5 years out of 6 in which Sampras finished the season at no 1. Imagine if Nadal was out 75% of the time in 2007-2010.

 

[jg153040]

The no 2 in 30 years will be more achieved, but not as great as Bolt, because he didn't dominate his era to the extent that Bolt dominated his era. The #1 in 30 years will have to be as dominant compared to the rest of his peers as Bolt has been to be regarded as great as Bolt.

Sampras won 175% of the slams as the next best in his era, so someone in another era has to better that to be greater.

Yes this is a good example of the point I was trying to make. A little flawed and exaggerated. I mean is it fair to use only slams as the only metric? And it is hard to define an era. Because Agassi was also present in the 2000s.

But still you gave very good example of the point I'm trying to make.
Is the hypothetical goat the one with the best achievements? Or is the goat the one who distances himself from the pack the most? Any ideas?