GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
RE: The Greatest Female Tennis Player of All Time
The issue is what is considered important by the players. It varies from time to time. If say Roger has considered it important to win lot of titles, he sure could have played lot of 250 events over the years and reached Connor's count. The reason Roger did not reach it is not because it is unreachable but because it is unvaluable for him as well as many other modern players. They just want more wins in quality tourneys.
This is what makes GOATESS argument tricky. In different eras different aspects might have been considered valuable. Whatever is considered invaluable is not pursued. So, simply taking the statistics and comparing players of different era is faulty.
Fiero425 said:GameSetAndMath said:Fiero425 said:With Navratilova's record & longevity, she's got t/b in the mix! She won 6 in a row; '83 Wimbl. to '84 USO finally losing at AO SF when at the end of the season! She also won 59 majors in singles, dubs, & MxDubs, 167 singles titles & 177 Dubs (both a rec. men or women) taking last USO w/ Bryan Bro fast approaching 50 y.o. in '06! She took on all comers from Evert, Goolagong, Court, Wade, & King to Graf, Seles, Shriver, Jaeger, & Austin; & many in btwn! :ras:
This is kind of already discussed earlier in the thread. While discussing GOATESS, we should throw away all the doubles and mixed doubles titles and results (unless we have two players whose records in singles are identical or very close0. This is because how many doubles titles you win depends also on who is your partner.
Clearly Martina's 18 count has been surpassed by Steffi and Serena (not to mention that Martina could not catch up to the 24 by MC or even the 19 by HWM which were set before Martina's time). I don't put too much stock in the 167 singles titles as in olden days they were playing so many itsy bitsy tourneys and so their title numbers were way too high. Jimmy has 108 titles in singles (in Men), but nobody thinks he is GOAT because of that. It is the same logic here.
Of course, Martina is an elite player and a contender, but I am not sure she is THE GOATESS.
If it's so easy to win so many tournaments, why aren't there more than 2 or 3 players with those kinds of numbers? :nono
The issue is what is considered important by the players. It varies from time to time. If say Roger has considered it important to win lot of titles, he sure could have played lot of 250 events over the years and reached Connor's count. The reason Roger did not reach it is not because it is unreachable but because it is unvaluable for him as well as many other modern players. They just want more wins in quality tourneys.
This is what makes GOATESS argument tricky. In different eras different aspects might have been considered valuable. Whatever is considered invaluable is not pursued. So, simply taking the statistics and comparing players of different era is faulty.