Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[Fiero425]

I'm so glad you pointed that out mate. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it, and as for the claim that I have recency bias.... tosh! If I assert that it's a different sport now that's not recency bias at all. It's different! He loooves to try to label things to control the narrative!

Personally I would go with Navratilova as the greatest. Number of slams not just in singles, dominance, a partner in the greatest rivalry tennis has seen. I mean... think about it, had Evert not been there she would probably have 30 singles titles and we wouldn't even be debating this!

I always thought she lost some of those single's finals due to overplaying; singles, dubs, & MxD when possible! She was too successful at all of them so it wasn't usual for her to play 2 or 3 times a day; esp. closing in on the finals! Funny, I still remember having to wait until the record book in '86 to find out if she won the Inaugural MxD event at The Lipton Int'l of '85! That was the 1st time I remember her winning all 3 events in Delray Beach! That was the reason it was considered the 5th major at the time!

 

[Federberg]

I always thought she lost some of those single's finals due to overplaying; singles, dubs, & MxD when possible! She was too successful at all of them so it wasn't usual for her to play 2 or 3 times a day; esp. closing in on the finals! Funny, I still remember having to wait until the record book in '86 to find out if she won the Inaugural MxD event at The Lipton Int'l of '85! That was the 1st time I remember her winning all 3 events in Delray Beach! That was the reason it was considered the 5th major at the time!

That's a fair point!

 

[Fiero425]

That's a fair point!

I don't think people remember or realize how dominate Navratilova was at the time from '82-86! In '83 it was about winning games against her, least of all sets! I overslept a little and missed the 1st set of her defeat of Andrea Jaeger at '83 Wimbledon! It was over in 13 min. without a loss of a game! That would be about the time for 2 games with Azarenka and Sharapova!:whistle:

 

[Federberg]

I don't think people remember or realize how dominate Navratilova was at the time from '82-86! In '83 it was about winning games against her, least of all sets! I overslept a little and missed the 1st set of her defeat of Andrea Jaeger at '83 Wimbledon! It was over in 13 min. without a loss of a game! That would be about the time for 2 games with Azarenka and Sharapova!:whistle:

Yes I agree. That's why I think she's hand down the GOAT. If I'm going to call anyone the GOAT that is. I find comparing across sexes no more absurd than across distant eras..

 

[El Dude]

If you are having the distinction of GOAT and BOAT and you are assessing GOATness as to how well one dominated during their time, then there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that HWM is the GOATESS. You cannot use what Federberg is saying whenever you want and not use it whenever you don't want.

So you're saying it has to be black or white, either or? I disagree. I also disagree that Moody is "no doubt whatsoever" the GOATESS. I haven't done a deep study of it, but am hesitant not to doubt.

 

[El Dude]

Federberg, I'm going to bow out of this. It is getting more and more tedious, especially now that you're talking about me to someone else in the third person, appealing to the crowd ("we all") and other silly stuff. Again, I'm not interested in that sort of thing. It starts obfuscating actual interesting conversation. I'm happy agreeing to disagree.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, I'm going to bow out of this. It is getting more and more tedious, especially now that you're talking about me to someone else in the third person, appealing to the crowd ("we all") and other silly stuff. Again, I'm not interested in that sort of thing. It starts obfuscating actual interesting conversation. I'm happy agreeing to disagree.

Fine by me! You accuse me of mis-representing what you say and then you go right ahead and do the same! It's hilarious really. And a little passive aggressive. And I'm perfectly happy arguing my point against the masses. I was just happy to see someone else notice the inherent contradictions in your argument. Would gladly admit an error in my thinking. No skin off my nose, I just find it amusing when others cloak their posts in reasonableness when they're not

 

[britbox]

I'm so glad you pointed that out mate. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it, and as for the claim that I have recency bias.... tosh! If I assert that it's a different sport now that's not recency bias at all. It's different! He loooves to try to label things to control the narrative!

Personally I would go with Navratilova as the greatest. Number of slams not just in singles, dominance, a partner in the greatest rivalry tennis has seen. I mean... think about it, had Evert not been there she would probably have 30 singles titles and we wouldn't even be debating this!

Can't see her hitting 30. If she won everything where she lost to Evert she'd have 26 and that's on the assumption she'd have never have lost to anyone else.

 

[Federberg]

Can't see her hitting 30. If she won everything where she lost to Evert she'd have 26 and that's on the assumption she'd have never have lost to anyone else.

I can live with 26!

 

[mrzz]

peak Andy Murray would probably beat peak Rod Laver

No, peak Wawrinka would beat peak Murray. The rest we don´t know.

Seriously, @El Dude , I can´t find your "generations" series anymore... I wanted to check some data you compiled there before I post a little idea I had... do you easily have at hand your list of players belonging to each generation? Can you re-post the names in the Laver group, and the next two?

Strange, I very much agree with your distinction between "best" and "great", but only up to a point. If the difference in overall level is too big, I don´t think I could ever concede that one guy was still the greatest. And while I agree with Federberg´s general notion of the "closed system", we cannot simply assume that tennis in the sixties is just a sport of a few luck ones, completely different from now, without checking or analisying some data. Sure the proposition is possible, but given that you would discredit whole generations because of it, the least you can do is to back it up at least a little.

(Just to clarify, I do believe it is a completely different sport, but as a result of a lot of factors, as you guys already pointed out along the thread. For example, I think the difference between now and the 80´s are much sharper than 80´s and 60´s).

 

[Federberg]

No, peak Wawrinka would beat peak Murray. The rest we don´t know.

Seriously, @El Dude , I can´t find your "generations" series anymore... I wanted to check some data you compiled there before I post a little idea I had... do you easily have at hand your list of players belonging to each generation? Can you re-post the names in the Laver group, and the next two?

Strange, I very much agree with your distinction between "best" and "great", but only up to a point. If the difference in overall level is too big, I don´t think I could ever concede that one guy was still the greatest. And while I agree with Federberg´s general notion of the "closed system", we cannot simply assume that tennis in the sixties is just a sport of a few luck ones, completely different from now, without checking or analisying some data. Sure the proposition is possible, but given that you would discredit whole generations because of it, the least you can do is to back it up at least a little.

(Just to clarify, I do believe it is a completely different sport, but as a result of a lot of factors, as you guys already pointed out along the thread. For example, I think the difference between now and the 80´s are much sharper than 80´s and 60´s).

is your now vs 80s vs 60s because of wooden racquets?

 

[mrzz]

^In fact, no. Just the eye-test (yeah, I know). The wooden racquets are surely part of the story, but surely there is more to it. Maybe we should open a specific thread about the underlying changes on the game.

 

[Federberg]

^In fact, no. Just the eye-test (yeah, I know). The wooden racquets are surely part of the story, but surely there is more to it. Maybe we should open a specific thread about the underlying changes on the game.

I'll grant you these guys move around rapidly. There definitely seems to be heightened physicality now in comparison to even the 80s. For me the demarcation point would be wooden racquets, and then the evolution of Lendl as a dominant force in the 80s. He's really the proto-typical tour pro now. Baseliner with a fierce forehand. As an aside it's one of the reasons why I see guys like Lendl and Borg as far more significant in terms of greatness than others might. These guys changed the game

 

[mrzz]

These guys changed the game

Well, that´s the most important point IMO in a GOAT debate -- even if not the only one, obviously.

 

[britbox]

Where the hell is Rene Lacoste in these lists...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Federer won the inaugural IPTL event (where the other best players in tour such as Rafa and Novak also participated). He was even paid more than a million dollars for it. So, I guess it should count as a Slam for him. He now has 20 GS titles, if you include the pro slams like IPTL.

 

[Federberg]

Federer won the inaugural IPTL event (where the other best players in tour such as Rafa and Novak also participated). He was even paid more than a million dollars for it. So, I guess it should count as a Slam for him. He now has 20 GS titles, if you include the pro slams like IPTL.

Too funny!

 

[El Dude]

No, peak Wawrinka would beat peak Murray. The rest we don´t know.

Seriously, @El Dude , I can´t find your "generations" series anymore... I wanted to check some data you compiled there before I post a little idea I had... do you easily have at hand your list of players belonging to each generation? Can you re-post the names in the Laver group, and the next two?

Yeah, my blog didn't make the transition. Britbox and I talked about setting it up but in the end I decided I didn't want to do it. Anyhow, the three generations in question are:

1934-38
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Lew Hoad
4. Roy Emerson
5. Manuel Santana
6. Ashley Cooper
7. Alex Olmedo
8. Fred Stolle
9.Mal Anderson
10. Andres Gimeno

1939-43
1. Arthur Ashe
2. Chuck McKinley
3. William Bowrey
4. Martin Mulligan
5. Bunch of other guys (Buccholz, Drysdale, Riessen, etc)

1944-48
1. John Newcombe
2. Ilie Nastase
3. Stan Smith
4. Tony Roche
5. Jan Kodes
6. Tom Okker
7. Cliff Richey
8. Alex Metreveli
9. Zeljko Franuvolic
10. Onny Parun

Anyhow, those are from a couple years ago and are rough drafts of whatever I ended up publishing...don't know how they were different, if at all. I'm not sure if I would make any adjustments now.

Strange, I very much agree with your distinction between "best" and "great", but only up to a point. If the difference in overall level is too big, I don´t think I could ever concede that one guy was still the greatest. And while I agree with Federberg´s general notion of the "closed system", we cannot simply assume that tennis in the sixties is just a sport of a few luck ones, completely different from now, without checking or analisying some data. Sure the proposition is possible, but given that you would discredit whole generations because of it, the least you can do is to back it up at least a little.

(Just to clarify, I do believe it is a completely different sport, but as a result of a lot of factors, as you guys already pointed out along the thread. For example, I think the difference between now and the 80´s are much sharper than 80´s and 60´s).

As to the first, I agree and said as much about Moody, but was taken to task for it. Some folks want it to be black or white. But as far as GOAT is concerned, I like to think in terms of contextual dominance first, and then adjust for other things. And yes, I tend to include a touch of recency bias.

As for the notion about tennis being a "completely different sport," take issue with the extremity of that phrasing. For one, you have players like Pancho Gonzales, who peaked in the 1950s, holding his own in the early years of the Open Era in his 40s, even beating Jimmy Connors in a Masters equivalent (Jimmy was 19, but still up and coming). Then Jimmy peaked in the 70s and held his own in a Slam as late as the early 90s. And so on. Players adapt and adjust over time, because the game is still tennis.

Very different? Absolutely. But "completely?" It is hyperbole and rather obfuscating.

Anyhow, it would be interesting to hear from players about the way the game has changed. You could ask someone like Fabrice Santoro, who played his first Slam in 1989 and his last in 2010.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There is a site called ultimate tennis records. It has an Open Era Got List based on a complex point scheme. I am not sure I agree with their findings completely. However, I am throwing it in here for discussion. See the explanation below the list for their methodology.

 

[mrzz]

Very different? Absolutely. But "completely?" It is hyperbole and rather obfuscating.

You are completely right that it is an hyperbole. You could say that it is as different as it is possible to be given that the rules are exactly the same.

Thx for the data.