Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[mrzz]

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

Thanks again. I thought that one way to measure Laver´s "greatness" would be to assess his H2H against guys of the following generations. The reason is two-fold: One thing is that this is always difficult (on average), of course that you will get matches were you play your opponent "too young", but it is safe to assume that on average the older player would have passed his prime -- specially in the case were we take a difference of two generations. The second part -- and this is the important one -- the younger the generation, the smaller the "closed system effect" (after all we assume that as time goes by, tennis became more popular).


Well, against the 39-43 generation, Laver has a 43-13 combined record, and a positive H2H against them all individually. Against the 44-48 generation, he has a 58-29 combined H2H, only losing to Nastase (2-4) and Stan Smith (6-7).

I guess that this is a pretty good result. Considering that he did so well against the next two generations (I did not even look his H2H against his own generation), I would like to see the results againt the next one (which would comprise players 11 to 15 years younger than him).

 

[El Dude]

@mrzz, that's actually an interesting idea - looking at records for greats against the best of each generation.

The next generation is:

1949-53
1. Jimmy Connors
2. Guillermo Vilas
3. Manuel Orantes
4. Roscoe Tanner
5. Brian Gottfried
6. Harold Solomon
7. Adrian Panatta
8. Raul Ramirez
9. Eddie Dibbs
10. Jose Higueras

 

[mrzz]

Thx, Dude. If we had more Italians they would be cursing you till the end of time for writing "Adrian Panatta" (Adriano), with both "A"s, specially the middle one, as open as you guys say in "hard".

But, back to business: Impressive. The combined H2H against this generation is 21-12!

Only two players have positive H2H against him, Connors (0-3) and Eddie Dibbs (2-3). Dibbs got all his wins in 77 and 78 (Laver was 40). The only bad one is against Connors, not only 0-3 but the last match on 77 is 6x0 6x1 rout, on indoor carpet.

Villas and Raul Ramirez are tied (1-1 and 2-2), while he haven´t played Higueras. Honestly, for me this is pretty amazing stuff. I guess that among any other all time greats, the only other guy who could compile similar results would be Federer (remembering that we need to wait to a guy to retire to see the final numbers).

Given that he is still winning against the third generation after him, I now would like to see the fourth. This time I guess he is bound to lose...

 

[mrzz]

Can you give us the list of the top players of the 54-58 generation, @El Dude ?

 

[El Dude]

Sure.

Top 10 Players 1954-58
1. Bjorn Borg
2. Vitas Gerulaitis
3. Johan Kriek
4. Jose Luis Clerc
5. Brian Teacher
6. Mark Edmondson
7. Gene Mayer
8. Kevin Curren
9. Victor Pecci
10. Peter McNamara

Talk about a weak generation. Borg was obviously great, and Gerulaitis was very good and might have won more Slams if he wasn't such a party boy. Kriek is probably the worst multi-Slam winner of the Open Era, winning two AOs that weren't much deeper than today's ATP 500s. The rest were all Richard Gasquet or lesser.

Anyhow, I'm guessing Laver didn't play more than a few matches against this group. I think he played Borg once or twice and lost. Not sure about the rest.

But yeah, Laver was truly great. I call his generation "The Greatest Generation" because no generation was as dominant and for as long. Rosewall alone had a 20-year Slam title span, winning his first at 18 years old in 1953 and his last at 37 in 1972. Before 2017, I gave Laver the edge as "the" GOAT, but now I might give Roger the edge. If Roger wins the USO and/or finishes the year #1, I think I'd give him the edge.

In the end, though, I feel more comfortable with the concept of a "Tribe of GOATs" rather than a singular GOAT. The problem with a singular GOAT, is that the truly greatest players are or were all great in different ways, so it is hard to line them up in one single ranking system. But even with a tribe, it is hard to draw the line.

I have a rough draft of an unpublished blog article on the "Tribe of GOATs" concept that I might polish up and post here. It basically goes through the tribe and says why they belong, but also why they aren't "the" GOAT.

 

[mrzz]

You´re were right, he barely played this generation, only Borg and Gerulaitis, 3-5 and 3-1, to a combined 6-6. His H2H with Borg was 3-3 up to 76, where he lost one match, and then another in 78. Hell, he is from 38, so this guys are at least 16 years younger, and he still is 6-6?

I went after this numbers with some detail because @Federberg ´s arguments made a lot of sense to me -- it was possible that the true greats from the past "lived" in a world so different from the one we know that we simply could not compare anything. But there is a way those worlds touch each other, because time goes by and generations intertwine. Of course this small analysis I did proves nothing -- we won´t prove anything anyway, but it was enough to convince myself that the guy was a true great, and that maybe those CYGS are for real... (there must be a reason nobody else did the same).

 

[Federberg]

You´re were right, he barely played this generation, only Borg and Gerulaitis, 3-5 and 3-1, to a combined 6-6. His H2H with Borg was 3-3 up to 76, where he lost one match, and then another in 78. Hell, he is from 38, so this guys are at least 16 years younger, and he still is 6-6?

I went after this numbers with some detail because @Federberg ´s arguments made a lot of sense to me -- it was possible that the true greats from the past "lived" in a world so different from the one we know that we simply could not compare anything. But there is a way those worlds touch each other, because time goes by and generations intertwine. Of course this small analysis I did proves nothing -- we won´t prove anything anyway, but it was enough to convince myself that the guy was a true great, and that maybe those CYGS are for real... (there must be a reason nobody else did the same).

I'm not sure it invalidates my point. For me to concede that, it would mean that I was really talking about BOATs not GOATs The core of my point is the depth issue. You simply can't overlook it. I never said Laver or Gonzalez weren't good players, they patently were. But cross era comparisons are inherently dodgy

 

[mrzz]

I'm not sure it invalidates my point

It doesn't. Ultimately it is impossible to completely invalidate it. I tried to explore what I believe it is the only objective data available relatively connected to this issue. Coming back to your example, it is like finding that the best guys from that group of players in Cameroon once played a few guys who by themselves played another guys who by their turn played the big boys. I know tennis is not completely transitive, but if the guys in Cameroon where completely dorks, somewhere down this chain you would see some 6x0 6x0 6x0.

But again, surely is not definitive, but you gotta go with what you get. It was enough to convince myself that the guy was a freak.

 

[El Dude]

Well here's the thing. @mrzz has done some research that pretty much supports the notion that Laver was truly great, but @Federberg has only really asserted an opinion. So while @Federberg feels like his point hasn't been invalidated, he's done nothing to support it, while @mrzz has worked up some statistics that at least challenges it.

 

[Federberg]

Come on buddy! Thought you said you were happy to agree to disagree and you were bored. Don't start getting interested because you think someone's helping you! Hypocrisy much? I don't feel I need to support my point at all. I have never said Laver isn't a great. I object to comparisons of his era and achievements to this era's guys. It's farcical

 

[mrzz]

Well here's the thing. @mrzz has done some research that pretty much supports the notion that Laver was truly great, but @Federberg has only really asserted an opinion. So while @Federberg feels like his point hasn't been invalidated, he's done nothing to support it, while @mrzz has worked up some statistics that at least challenges it.

Yeah, I am cool, @Federberg is not. He thinks -- can you imagine it -- that Maradona is better than Pelé...

 

[El Dude]

Oh relax, @Federberg. I was just jabbing you in the ribs a bit.

But aside from a bit of teasing, my serious point is that mrzz was at least trying to investigate via research, which is not the same thing as merely arguing an opinion. Do you see the difference? I tend to take mrzz's approach: investigate and research, then maybe draw a conclusion. You seem to start with an opinion, argue it, but don't necessarily bother to investigate whether it is true beyond what you already believe. You also seem to like to turn everything into an argument, so you are always defending your view...what if we turn that sort of thing aside and look at this as a shared investigation? I know we're all a bit habituated to internet arguments, but I personally find that sort of approach tedious, and find myself more interested in deepening my understanding than trying to be right.

In this context, I don't care about whether I win or lose an argument. What I care about is understanding tennis, and coming to as sound a view on it as I possibly can. That's why I like looking at numbers - because they offer me something beyond mere subjectivity. They aren't right in and of themselves, but they at least give me something to look at. So I appreciate what mrzz is doing not because I think it's "helping me," but because he's trying to understand, not merely support an opinion - and his research does help me, but not in feeling like I'm right but in deepening my understanding.

 

[El Dude]

Yeah, I am cool, @Federberg is not. He thinks -- can you imagine it -- that Maradona is better than Pelé...

Haha. To be honest, I have no opinion on that as I'm not a big soccer fan. I'm American, after all.

 

[Federberg]

Oh relax, @Federberg. I was just jabbing you in the ribs a bit.

But aside from a bit of teasing, my serious point is that mrzz was at least trying to investigate via research, which is not the same thing as merely arguing an opinion. Do you see the difference? I tend to take mrzz's approach: investigate and research, then maybe draw a conclusion. You seem to start with an opinion, argue it, but don't necessarily bother to investigate whether it is true beyond what you already believe. You also seem to like to turn everything into an argument, so you are always defending your view...what if we turn that sort of thing aside and look at this as a shared investigation? I know we're all a bit habituated to internet arguments, but I personally find that sort of approach tedious, and find myself more interested in deepening my understanding than trying to be right.

In this context, I don't care about whether I win or lose an argument. What I care about is understanding tennis, and coming to as sound a view on it as I possibly can. That's why I like looking at numbers - because they offer me something beyond mere subjectivity. They aren't right in and of themselves, but they at least give me something to look at. So I appreciate what mrzz is doing not because I think it's "helping me," but because he's trying to understand, not merely support an opinion - and his research does help me, but not in feeling like I'm right but in deepening my understanding.

Lol! Don't try to tar me with that brush mate. We're only having an argument because you're so sensitive when people challenge your data. I have no issue using data or expressing my opinion. The simple fact is that you can only ever debate cross-era GOATs based on opinion in my opinion. In fact that's the core of what I've been saying Thought that was quite clear.

By the way if you were more interested in deepening your understanding rather than being right you would probably be arguing these points far less. You might try to obscure it, but there's an awful lot of ego in how you operate. Hey, I'm not knocking it. I'm the first to admit I have a bit of an ego too. I just have a bit more respect for people who own it!

The simple truth is a don't really care if you agree with me or not. Let's keep it real here, we're not trying to figure out the meaning of life. This is water cooler talk about GOATs. I'm fairly open about my disdain for the concept, so I'm not sure what sort of "shared investigation" there can be. Good grief, there is no truth here. Just opinion. Please step down from the soap box. I promise I'll ignore any "data" you present in the future that I have an issue with. For the record, my issue is not because I don't respect data. I actually do... greatly. I just don't respect the mis-use of data. Sermon over...

 

[Federberg]

Yeah, I am cool, @Federberg is not. He thinks -- can you imagine it -- that Maradona is better than Pelé...

hmmm... not sure I actually said that. I might have, but don't think I did. I think what I said was that he was of equal stature. They, both, are the mount rushmore players of football!

 

[El Dude]

Why you so angry? Of course I have ego, but you're flailing in your projections. I don't have a position to defend here, so not sure what you think I'm having an ego about. I'm far less attached to "my data" than you think...that's just fun stuff, and a means to explore and deepen understanding, not a Master's thesis I'm defending. But clearly you're more interested in being Mr Right than having a rational discussion. Have fun with that, but not interested.

 

[Federberg]

Why you so angry? Of course I have ego, but you're flailing in your projections. I don't have a position to defend here, so not sure what you think I'm having an ego about. I'm far less attached to "my data" than you think...that's just fun stuff, and a means to explore and deepen understanding, not a Master's thesis I'm defending. But clearly you're more interested in being Mr Right than having a rational discussion. Have fun with that, but not interested.

Lol! I'm not angry at all! I've just come across too many passive aggressive posters. Anyway let's stop this, it's utterly boring now

 

[El Dude]

Hey, we agree on that.

Can't wait to see the GOAT, Roger Federer, play again soon.

 

[Obsi]

Lol! I'm not angry at all!

You're angry. I see that my insults affected you and that's brilliant.

 

[Federberg]

^Am I missing something here? Aren't you just copying my response to the Dude?