Why the GOAT does NOT exist

[TMF]

As expected, you cannot produce a list of majority opinion, as it does not exist, not to mention players who have flip-flopped on the matter over the years.

Federer simply lacked the ability to show concentrated dominance over the field during a single season of majors like Laver, so he's a successful player, but not in the serious conversation of the greatest.

You're saying observation and keep up with the news doesn't count. I can understand that when you don't watch tennis while the rest are.

And since you suggest everything must be proven to have any merit, then it's perfectly fine if someone say Henin/Seles are superior player Serena and vice versa. Because by your logic, this can't be proven(no list of majority), and opinion from both sides are equally valid.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda means nothing to the long recognized standard of supreme accomplishment.

the "woulda" "shoulda" are coming from both sides(even you use it quite often) and it leads nowhere. That's why I came up with the stats that is the most objective method to determined who's the greatest player.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=387860(Thanks to Agassifan for creating the thread)

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
= Rafael Nadal 16*
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 32*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
= Rafael Nadal 16*

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Novak Djokovic 9*
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
8. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4
= Andy Murray 4

GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 38*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
8. Boris Becker 23
= Rafael Nadal 23*
9. Novak Djokovic 22*
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 14*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7
9. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Stefan Edberg 54
3. Roger Federer 52*
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
2. Roger Federer 248*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 297+*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 75*
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Sampras 6
= Rafael Nadal 50*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

 

[hoodjem]

For a long time now I have sat back and read all the various discussions about GOATs, of which there seems to be hundreds floating around. I have read all the arguments for and against and all the counter arguments, and I’m here to tell you that a tennis GOAT does not exist to this point.

So what defines a GOAT? A summary of all the arguments which have been written on this site follows:

Most slams won, ie beating the field most times.
Dominating your era as well as all your main rivals during your time.
Dominating a particular slam like no one else has done before you.
Dominating Wimbledon like no-one else has done before you.
Longest time spent at number 1.
Most titles won.
Dominating the player most perceive to be the GOAT.
Winning the grand slam.
Winning a career slam.

The above are all examples I have seen used to explain why any one player should be the GOAT. Alot of these points have merit, but can’t be used in isolation to determine the GOAT.

To me, there are 4 main things which come into consideration when choosing a GOAT.

Most slams won
Career slams

The career slam is a Carilloism. It and $2 might buy one a cup of coffee.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

And since you suggest everything must be proven to have any merit, then it's perfectly fine if someone say Henin/Seles are superior player Serena and vice versa.

You have only supported my point, with an erroneous parallel between Laver being the male version of Henin/Seles (we know you are basing this on majors numbers) and Federer being the male version of Serena so in your mind, you hope someone will say "well, SW has more majors, so it must be her" and you would come flying in a hot moment later to say "..then that mean Federer is GOAT, too!"

Not going to happen, guy.


Laver's winning the sport's zenith of accomplishement--the Grand Slam--trumps Federer's majors numbers (the number one excuse Fed fans use more than others), just as Seles--IF history took a different turn and among her lesser number of majors rested a Grand Slam--would have placed her above Serena, Chris, and Martina, among others. One criteria for GOAT--the Grand Slam--not the confused crap you try here, thus your little dance just slipped on its own saliva of Fed-defensive desperation.

You tend to value emotionalism above truth.

the "woulda" "shoulda" are coming from both sides

No, it is largely the broken tool of Federer fans who did not watch tennis until 2006, and never experienced decades of tennis history to actually know what they are talking about. So to this gaggle of Fed fans, their "new toy" is the best, as they know nothing else unless provided by the user-manipulated Wikipedia.

 

[TMF]

You have only supported my point, with an erroneous parallel between Laver being the male version of Henin/Seles (we know you are basing this on majors numbers) and Federer being the male version of Serena so in your mind, you hope someone will say "well, SW has more majors, so it must be her" and you would come flying in a hot moment later to say "..then that mean Federer is GOAT, too!"

Not going to happen, guy.

Nope. Review my stats again. It's about slams, ranking, level of domination, winning %, etc.

Laver's winning the sport's zenith of accomplishement--the Grand Slam--trumps Federer's majors numbers (the number one excuse Fed fans use more than others), just as Seles--IF history took a different turn and among her lesser number of majors rested a Grand Slam--would have placed her above Serena, Chris, and Martina, among others. One criteria for GOAT--the Grand Slam--not the confused crap you try here, thus your little dance just slipped on its own saliva of Fed-defensive desperation.

You tend to value emotionalism above truth.

That's your opinion. No one in their right mind would say 1 year of accomplishment(Laver 69) leap frog a player's entire career. It's only 1 criteria, just like Fed's 23 semifinals, or Borg's 5 straight Wimbledon. Now try to see a full picture, not focus on 1 and throw everything out of the window.

No, it is largely the broken tool of Federer fans who did not watch tennis until 2006, and never experienced decades of tennis history to actually know what they are talking about. So to this gaggle of Fed fans, their "new toy" is the best, as they know nothing else unless provided by the user-manipulated Wikipedia.

You're saying those old-timers in the former talk forum never watch tennis until 2006.

And you're the one who uses plenty of if, woulda, shoulda yourself to denigrate Roger.

 

[NadalAgassi]

And since you suggest everything must be proven to have any merit, then it's perfectly fine if someone say Henin/Seles are superior player Serena and vice versa.

Nice try but no. Henin and Serena are almost exactly the same age and played in exactly the same era. Serena did far better in it, and dominated Henin outside of clay. There is no possible speculation who would do better in the same era or if they were on tour together for years and contemporaries and played one another, we already saw the answer to that.

As for Seles, Serena was not washed up and unable to deal with the new gaurd at only 22, not to mention they played a bunch of times when both were outside their primes and Serena mulched Seles. What should have been part of Seles's time aged 23 to 27 from 1997 to 2001 was even more 15 to 19 year old Serena's time than it was Seles's.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Richard Gasquet is one of the most talented players of all time. It is unfortunate that his rivals and adversaries used their Swiss and German connections to pressure the Florida prosecutors into making a federal case out of Gasquet kissing a girl at a party. People should be free to kiss at parties without fear of malicious prosecution on frivolous trumped-up charges.

I doubt it's a conspiracy.

 

[LuckyR]

As expected, you cannot produce a list of majority opinion, as it does not exist, not to mention players who have flip-flopped on the matter over the years.

Federer simply lacked the ability to show concentrated dominance over the field during a single season of majors like Laver, so he's a successful player, but not in the serious conversation of the greatest.

...and to borrow your own words--now used against those Fed fans---for years using the limp defense "he won three that year, and could have..."




Shoulda, woulda, coulda means nothing to the long recognized standard of supreme accomplishment.

Considering that tennis has become more popular over time, the Tour has become more grueling and the surfaces have become more diverse, why in the world would you expect a Modern player to match or even break the relatively easier dominance of a Classic player? Modern players are better than Classic players because Modern tennis, modern training techniques and modern tech are better.

True it's "unfair" that greats from yesteryear can't be considered the best (at playing the game of tennis, not in winning this or that tournament, or beating similar "not the best" opposition) because of when they played. But that's the breaks.

Nadal's FO accomplishment was > Borgs before he matched Borgs numbers, for example.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer simply lacked the ability to show concentrated dominance over the field during a single season of majors like Laver, so he's a successful player, but not in the serious conversation of the greatest.

I would say 3 consecutive seasons with winning % in the 90's is an adequate domination.

 

[tennytive]

I've said this before… there is no GOAT. All time hasn't happened yet.

If the world ends on 12 12 12 then Fed is GOAT.

If not, then he is one if several GOTEs Greatest of Their Era.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I've said this before… there is no GOAT. All time hasn't happened yet.

I dont think anyone is proclaiming any player GOAF (greatest of all future).

 

[Povl Carstensen]

If the world ends on 12 12 12 then Fed is GOAT.

Aha.

If not, then he is one if several GOTEs Greatest of Their Era.

No, then he must be GOAT of all eras untill now according to the above.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Unless he is GOAAPATMTS, greatest of all active players at the moment time stopped. But can he be that if he is nr 2 in the rankings?

 

[helloworld]

There is only the greatest of your own era. Laver and Sampras were undisputed greatest of their own era. Federer has Nadal and Djokovic to contend with, so he cannot claim that title yet.

 

[monfed]

There is only the greatest of your own era. Laver and Sampras were undisputed greatest of their own era. Federer has Nadal and Djokovic to contend with, so he cannot claim that title yet.

LOLWOT?
CSB.17 slams.kthxbai :lol:

 

[helloworld]

LOLWOT?
CSB.17 slams.kthxbai :lol:

His H2H with Nadal is the reason why we cannot call him the greatest of his generation. How can the greatest of a generation have a losing H2H against his main rival? That doesn't sound right. BTW, Nadal is not done yet either.

 

[monfed]

His H2H with Nadal is the reason why we cannot call him the greatest of his generation. How can the greatest of a generation have a losing H2H against his main rival? That doesn't sound right. BTW, Nadal is not done yet either.

What about Pete's blank in RG?:lol: BTW this is where Ralph stacked up his H2H stats against Fed(and guys like Djokovic too).
Plus,how can Sampras be the greatest of his era if Krajicek who thrashed him black n blue in Wimby 96(on Pete's favourite surface without question AND in his prime no less) leads the H2H? That just sounds wrong. Sorry Pete can't be the greatest of his era,not to mention one of his main rivals Agassi was too busy doing meth when Pete was racking up slams.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

GOAT - No.

Greatest of their ERA - Yes.

Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer are the Greatest of their era. Saying that Federer is not the greatest of his era, is just plain nuts.

 

[LuckyR]

I've said this before… there is no GOAT. All time hasn't happened yet.

If the world ends on 12 12 12 then Fed is GOAT.

If not, then he is one if several GOTEs Greatest of Their Era.

Well yes and no. You are correct the future hasn't happened yet so technically there is no GOAT. But you are incorrect that there isn't a Best In Recorded History (BIRH). Right now that person is NOT Sampras, Tilden, Laver, Borg, Gonzalez etc. Right now it is Roger.

I specifically chose Best instead of Greatest to be more clear.

 

[AnotherTennisProdigy]

Technically, as long as there are more than one people on the planet there will always be a GOAT. The way I see it is: the Greatest of All Time does exist, we will just never know for sure who it is.

 

[kiki]

Goat is an abstract idea and because of that has been so appealing to human race for ages and will remain so

 

[Povl Carstensen]

How can the greatest of a generation have a losing H2H against his main rival? That doesn't sound right.

It is feasible, acceptable and not surprising against a surface goat. Federer being second best of his era on his worst surface after a surface goat (who is not a overall goat contender so far) does not put his goat status in jeopardy. Oh, we have had this discussion before, sorry...

 

[tennisaddict]

How can the greatest of a generation have a losing H2H against his main rival? That doesn't sound right. BTW, Nadal is not done yet either.

Come up with some other excuse ****.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

There is only the greatest of your own era. Laver and Sampras were undisputed greatest of their own era. Federer has Nadal and Djokovic to contend with, so he cannot claim that title yet.

Federer's era ended a while ago. This is Djokovic's era.