The GOAT Discussion (Men)

[brokenshoelace]

How many weeks at number 1 would Sampras have had if he played in an era with Federer and Djokovic? Serious question. He'd be a non factor for 3 months of the season...so?

So yeah, it's funny how selective argumentation works. Hewitt and Roddick are HOF's who are victims of Roger Federer, but when it comes to Nadal, it's forgotten who he's dealing with. Just because he's actually more than held his own doesn't mean he could have had an even better career had it not been for Federer.

Now, I still think this is irrelevant because we should go by facts and not what ifs. So yes, Sampras was more dominant. It's a fact. But honestly, I think Nadal is a better, more complete tennis player.

 

[Moxie]

Well said, Broken. I am completely generous towards those who have many weeks at #1. But those weeks do come with circumstances. It's obvious why Nadal had a tough slog as to #1. I will say it again: He had 5 Majors before he got to #1. Unprecedented.

And why Pete and Roger logged a lot of weeks at the top. Same for Djokovic now, who's just ticking them off, at the moment. There's a lot to be said for good timing. As great as Nadal is, he has been wedged between Federer and Djokovic. At least he has the bragging rights of H2H over both.

 

[MikeOne]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
How many weeks at number 1 would Sampras have had if he played in an era with Federer and Djokovic? Serious question. He'd be a non factor for 3 months of the season...so?

So yeah, it's funny how selective argumentation works. Hewitt and Roddick are HOF's who are victims of Roger Federer, but when it comes to Nadal, it's forgotten who he's dealing with. Just because he's actually more than held his own doesn't mean he could have had an even better career had it not been for Federer.

Now, I still think this is irrelevant because we should go by facts and not what ifs. So yes, Sampras was more dominant. It's a fact. But honestly, I think Nadal is a better, more complete tennis player.

Well, this game we can play all day long.

You make us ask ourselves, what would've Sampras accomplished had he had to contend with Djokovic and Federer. Well, let me ask you this question. In an era of faster surfaces, what would've Nadal done against guys like Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Agassi. You never know, maybe Nadal would've done less back in this era where grass was faster and indoor events were more commonplace. He would've dominated clay no doubt but would he have beaten guys like Becker, Ivanisevic, Rafter on fast grass, indoors? even US Open? Throw in Agassi and Safin at AO and USO too...

The game was different back then. You can see how aggressive chumps like Rosol and Dustin Brown give Nadal fits on this slower grass, imagine these superior net rushers with superior games on faster grass? Don't get me wrong, i think Nadal is an all around player but the game has changed and i'm not sure how he would've handled the surfaces and players of 90s...

We can also play this game with Federer. Federer amassed most of his slams against main rivals like Roddick, an extremely inconsistent Safin, Hewitt and baby Nadal (04-07); this is when Federer won most of his slams. So we can also diminish Federer's competition, very easily.

As far as Nadal goes, i will admit it's harder to diminish his competition because when he was rising, Federer was dominating and then Djokovic came along later, as Federer started to lose some steam. In any event, whilst it can be argued Nadal has had the toughest rivals of ALL OF THEM, we have absolutely no idea how Nadal would've handled the very different game of the 90s; he could've been made to look pedestrian, outside of clay. It was a very different game and technology.

 

[Moxie]

Another great argument for why there is no GOAT.

 

[britbox]

<cite>@Moxie said:</cite>
Another great argument for why there is no GOAT.  

For argument's sake, if Nadal won 18 slams and was leading the Masters count and got somewhere in the vicinity of an extra 50+ weeks at #1, added a YEC... would you still stand by that theory?

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
For argument's sake, if Nadal won 18 slams and was leading the Masters count and got somewhere in the vicinity of an extra 50+ weeks at #1, added a YEC... would you still stand by that theory?

"All-time" means the future and you cannot predict the future therefore there is no GOAT...or something.

God I've always despised this talking point. Just getting that random thought randomly out there.

 

[britbox]

@brokenshoelace That always threw me too. "All time" is upto and including NOW!  Obviously NOW! is an ever shifting goalpost but...

 

[Moxie]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
For argument's sake, if Nadal won 18 slams and was leading the Masters count and got somewhere in the vicinity of an extra 50+ weeks at #1, added a YEC... would you still stand by that theory?

I would. I don't even think he's the Clay GOAT. He can never play Borg. hey played with different sticks. Etc. And I don't see how you put Laver at #2. He was great, but he played in a very different time. We often remark on his two CYGS's, but don't bother to mention that it was basically only Aussies playing each other at the AO back then. don't think you can really compare across eras.

 

[britbox]

<cite>@Moxie said:</cite>
I would. Â I don't even think he's the Clay GOAT. Â He can never play Borg. Â They played with different sticks. Â Etc. Â And I don't see how you put Laver at #2. Â He was great, but he played in a very different time. Â We often remark on his two CYGS's, but don't bother to mention that it was basically only Aussies playing each other at the AO back then. Â I don't think you can really compare across eras.

Ah, but the Aussies were the best in the world back then... it's not like Rosewall, Emerson etc... were chopped liver or that Laver had any real kryptonite players who had him over. BUT... I would agree that a CYGS is tougher in the modern era. The field is far deeper and the tour is more demanding. Still, the Holy Grail has to count for something.

 

[Moxie]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>




Ah, but the Aussies were the best in the world back then... it's not like Rosewall, Emerson etc... were chopped liver or that Laver had any real kryptonite players who had him over. Â BUT... I would agree that a CYGS is tougher in the modern era. Â The field is far deeper and the tour is more demanding. Still, the Holy Grail has to count for something.

It does, and I'm not dissing Laver. I would say by the same token, the argument can be made that he is the GOAT, if you believe there is one. Why not? I think you can get it down to a few, but not one single answer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

lol, come on. Nadal being the clay GOAT is about the clearest case of GOAT-ism you can possibly have. It's kind of a copout to put that in doubt IMO, in order to cast a doubt on the GOAT issue in general.

Yeah, Nadal can't play Borg, but his accomplishments on clay are significantly superior, so the fact that he can't play him means little. Trophies > H2H.

 

[Moxie]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
lol, come on. Nadal being the clay GOAT is about the clearest case of GOAT-ism you can possibly have. It's kind of a copout to put that in doubt IMO, in order to cast a doubt on the GOAT issue in general.
Yeah, Nadal can't play Borg, but his accomplishments on clay are significantly superior, so the fact that he can't play him means little. Trophies > H2H.

I'm not trying to cast doubt on it. People will believe what they like. But I think we're defining terms differently. Nadal's accomplishments on clay are greater, so he's the greatest clay champion, sure. But is he the greatest clay player? That can't be known, as I said, because he can't play prime Borg. It explains something to me, though, if a lot of people are considering the GOAT to be the Greatest Tennis "champion" Of All Time, while I was taking it to mean the actual greatest tennis player, and I don't think there is one. It's rather easier to quantify by achievements, if not ever completely satisfactory, since achievements are different, as are eras. I'm fine if people want to define it that way. In any case, we'll debate it forever.

 

[britbox]

I differentiate between "greatest" and "best".

The evolution of Tennis doesn't stay still.
If you stay still then you are actually regressing.
In absolute terms, I think the best players are generally the current crop.

I define "greatness" in relevant terms rather than absolute... but I still think some context is needed. i.e. The field was considerably smaller back in the 60s and nowhere near the global sport it is now. Â But on the flipside, the players weren't necessarily all about winning majors back then, so that needs to be also considered when just looking at the numbers - The tour had a different structure.

 

[Moxie]

<cite>@britbox said:</cite>
I differentiate between "greatest" and "best".  The evolution of Tennis doesn't stay still.  If you stay still then you are actually regressing.  In absolute terms, I think the best players are generally the current crop.  I define "greatness" in relevant terms rather than absolute... but I still think some context is needed. i.e. The field was considerably smaller back in the 60s and nowhere near the global sport it is now.  But on the flipside, the players weren't necessarily all about winning majors back then, so that needs to be also considered when just looking at the numbers - The tour had a different structure.

So, your notion of "greatness" is "relevant greatness," (and probably more "relative") and not absolute.  I agree with that.  Which does seem to imply that there can be no ONE goat.  I could be on board with that.  It's not a small thing that tennis went from being a bunch of yeomen heaving around for beer money to the multi-million dollar enterprise it is now.  It's very hard to compare.

 

[MikeOne]

it's impossible to determine who is the 'best' of all time level wise because of competition. Would've Sampras won 14 slams with today's competition, with today's technology and on today's surfaces? Would've Nadal done well back in 90s, on faster surfaces, older racquets and against aggressive, net rushing attackers? Would've Federer dominated like he did between 04-07 had he had prime Nadal, prime Djokovic around instead of Roddick, Hewitt, Blake etc..? Accomplishments could be drastically different if all these greats had faced each other's competition.

'greatest' is easier to determine, it's purely about accomplishments, irrespective of strong or weak competition and there is no doubt, it's Federer.

The only way to determine who's best ever level wise is to have Fed-Nadal-Sampras-djokovic-Borg-Agassi-Lendl-Connors-Laver-Mcenroe and others face each other, in their primes, in different eras, using different tech and on different surfaces. This is obviously not possible. Laver played with wooden racquets and when 3/4 slams were on grass, didn't he? How can we compare him against anyone of today...

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@Moxie said:</cite>
I'm not trying to cast doubt on it.  People will believe what they like.  But I think we're defining terms differently.  Nadal's accomplishments on clay are greater, so he's the greatest clay champion, sure.  But is he the greatest clay player?  That can't be known, as I said, because he can't play prime Borg.  It explains something to me, though, if a lot of people are considering the GOAT to be the Greatest Tennis "champion" Of All Time, while I was taking it to mean the actual greatest tennis player, and I don't think there is one.  It's rather easier to quantify by achievements, if not ever completely satisfactory, since achievements are different, as are eras.  I'm fine if people want to define it that way.  In any case, we'll debate it forever.

OK, but we can use a bit of logic and deductive reason to reach our conclusion. Nobody's claiming the GOAT issue is absolute and set in stone, but if a guy has accomplished more, was more dominant, preposterously went through a period of a 83 consecutive wins on clay (or whatever the number was), lost one match at the French Open in ten appearances, etc... it's safe to say there's a substantial body of evidence to back up the claim.

Ditto for Roger being the GOAT.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, but if you were reading and not just condescending, you would see that I was making a distinction between the greater champion and the greatest player. Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@Moxie said:</cite>
Yes, but if you were reading and not just condescending, you would see that I was making a distinction between the greater champion and the greatest player.   Perhaps the difference is too subtle for you.

I was both reading and condescending. Generally I don't find it hard to multi-task between the two. But, if you're going to take shots, then at least understand the point I'm making. If someone is the "greatest champion" by such an overwhelming margin, then there is strong evidence to suggest he's the greatest player, especially because of every other factor going in his favor. Perhaps my post was not dumbed down enough for you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

<cite>@MikeOne said:</cite>
it's impossible to determine who is the 'best' of all time level wise because of competition. Would've Sampras won 14 slams with today's competition, with today's technology and on today's surfaces? Would've Nadal done well back in 90s, on faster surfaces, older racquets and against aggressive, net rushing attackers? Would've Federer dominated like he did between 04-07 had he had prime Nadal, prime Djokovic around instead of Roddick, Hewitt, Blake etc..? Accomplishments could be drastically different if all these greats had faced each other's competition.

'greatest' is easier to determine, it's purely about accomplishments, irrespective of strong or weak competition and there is no doubt, it's Federer.

The only way to determine who's best ever level wise is to have Fed-Nadal-Sampras-djokovic-Borg-Agassi-Lendl-Connors-Laver-Mcenroe and others face each other, in their primes, in different eras, using different tech and on different surfaces. This is obviously not possible. Laver played with wooden racquets and when 3/4 slams were on grass, didn't he? How can we compare him against anyone of today...

Actually, the "would Roger have dominated as much if we had prime Nadal and prime Djokovic" is about the silliest most reaching question one could invoke into the GOAT debate. Why? Because you can literally say that about anyone. You're essentially saying his competition are two double digit major winning all-time greats, one of which has a case for being the 2nd or 3rd best player to ever play the game, and the other on his way to fitting exactly that description. Do you know of many players who had to deal with that sort of competition? Even Nadal and Djokovic didn't have to deal with the other two (ie Nadal-Federer or Federer-Djokovic) being both in their primes at the same time. How much would Sampras have dominated if he had to deal with Nadal/Djokovic in their prime. You can ask that about anyone. If a player had to deal with these two in their primes, as older Roger has had to, then said player is pretty unlucky in terms of competition (not saying Roger is because his competition in his prime was not prime Nadal/Novak).

 

[Moxie]

<cite>@brokenshoelace said:</cite>
I was both reading and condescending. Generally I don't find it hard to multi-task between the two. But, if you're going to take shots, then at least understand the point I'm making. If someone is the "greatest champion" by such an overwhelming margin, then there is strong evidence to suggest he's the greatest player, especially because of every other factor going in his favor. Perhaps my post was not dumbed down enough for you.

Actually, I thought your point was so obvious that you didn't need to make it, and I didn't need to address it.  That's the standard argument.  I was offering a countering thought.  No worries.