Time to crown Novak the GOAT?

[shawnbm]

And the greatest album of all time is …..





Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely!!!!
There—take that!

 

[Kieran]

And the greatest album of all time is …..

Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely!!!!
There—take that!

It's definitely one of them, but that's like making an argument for Lew Hoad, and like a lot of things that used to be, in them old days people often did things for slightly different reasons than they do now. Certainly the greats back then played for a different strain of glory than players now. Evolution of sorts, which makes it difficult to tie them all in the one bag.

As for Rolling Stone magazine, I've read some recent articles that were a both woke and virtuous, while at the same time being clueless about music. It's all a bit tawdry...

 

[shawnbm]

Oh I hear ya, brother ….

always like the reference to Hoad—wish I could have seen what all the fuss was about

 

[Kieran]

Oh I hear ya, brother ….

always like the reference to Hoad—wish I could have seen what all the fuss was about

Apparently he was a proto-Becker, but with a stronger mind, and more injuries. So he was a proto-Rafa too

 

[tented]

As to GOAT, I have never said it's Rafa. But I ask you if AP, rafanoy, Kieran, tented, Margaret, Broken or even Carol has, either. You're talking about 2 Nadal trolls, I think. Gun to head, no, I wouldn't say it was Rafa, if there were ever to be such a thing as ONE. But don't look for people to just agree with your comments without argument. It doesn't make me a contrarian if I don't agree with you that it will eventually be Djokovic. (Which I haven't even said.) It's not fair to say that you are the only dispassionate voice in this conversation. It's a debate, it's far from decided, and you're not the only adult in the room.

You like to think that you are dispassionate, but you are not, completely. When you decide what the criteria are, you weigh in. And just because you think it makes you even-handed to say that you think that Djokovic will get it in the end, if we disagree with you and debate it, it doesn't mean that we are being "fannish." If you invite debate, you should be fair about assuming that it comes from as even-handed a place as you think you come from. Preferences will always expose themselves, but yours do, too. Is it fair to accuse us Nadal fans of being fannish? I think it's been a reasonable debate. (Trolls aside.)

 

[tented]

As to GOAT, I have never said it's Rafa. But I ask you if AP, rafanoy, Kieran, tented, Margaret, Broken or even Carol has, either. You're talking about 2 Nadal trolls, I think. Gun to head, no, I wouldn't say it was Rafa, if there were ever to be such a thing as ONE.

I don’t recall a non-troll Rafa fan claiming he’s the GOAT. If that happened, I don’t remember it. I also agree that gun to head, I wouldn’t say it’s Rafa either, if we are to embrace the Highlander (“There can be only one!”) view of the world. But I don’t think the single GOAT approach is correct anyway. It’s shortsighted and drenched with McEnroe’s hyperbolic commentary that whatever is happening right now is the greatest ever: “He has the best one-handed backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching a Gasquet match; “that’s the best backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching Federer; “I’ve never seen a better backhand” while watching Wawrinka.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I don’t recall a non-troll Rafa fan claiming he’s the GOAT. If that happened, I don’t remember it. I also agree that gun to head, I wouldn’t say it’s Rafa either, if we are to embrace the Highlander (“There can be only one!”) view of the world. But I don’t think the single GOAT approach is correct anyway. It’s shortsighted and drenched with McEnroe’s hyperbolic commentary that whatever is happening right now is the greatest ever: “He has the best one-handed backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching a Gasquet match; “that’s the best backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching Federer; “I’ve never seen a better backhand” while watching Wawrinka.

Spot on Tented especially with Johnny Mac's hyperbolic commentary. Speaking of Johnny Mac..I think he feels Rafa is overall the BETTER competitor of the big 3.

 

[Kieran]

I don’t recall a non-troll Rafa fan claiming he’s the GOAT. If that happened, I don’t remember it. I also agree that gun to head, I wouldn’t say it’s Rafa either, if we are to embrace the Highlander (“There can be only one!”) view of the world. But I don’t think the single GOAT approach is correct anyway. It’s shortsighted and drenched with McEnroe’s hyperbolic commentary that whatever is happening right now is the greatest ever: “He has the best one-handed backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching a Gasquet match; “that’s the best backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching Federer; “I’ve never seen a better backhand” while watching Wawrinka.

McEnroe would often say "that's the best backhand I've ever seen" of both players in a match between either of those three players...

 

[tented]

Spot on Tented especially with Johnny Mac's hyperbolic commentary. Speaking of Johnny Mac..I think he feels Rafa is overall the BETTER competitor of the big 3.

Not only him. For years now, I’ve heard many sports commentators say Nadal is the greatest competitor they’ve ever seen, which I think is accurate. Even DarthFed once posted a comment along the lines of: “This guy never gives up.” He wrote that in nothing short of complete exasperation when Rafa was beating Roger, but in fact it’s one of the best compliments one could give Rafa.

 

[El Dude]

I really think it has escaped your notice that real Nadal fans, and plenty of people on these forums, over the years, don't believe in a GOAT. The deep investment in the GOAT has come from the Federer fans, and, of late, from Djokovic himself, and so his fans. I agree with your basic philosophy that this will be the era of 3 all-time greats. In the end, I don't think they can be separated, historically. (And you're a great historian of tennis.) Because they are so close in age/era, what they did together will always be looked at as an amazing era of dominance. I understand why the Federer fans hold him so high, which has also to do with the loveliness of his rather classic style. Don't think I don't appreciate it. But I do think that, as you have said, about the 3 goats of this era, I honestly think we'll never disentangle them from each other. That will be this era. Now, maybe Novak will keep going, Rafa and Roger will fade, and Novak will keep dominating even this Gen. Will it make him the GOAT of forever? Well, it will make him the GOAT of now.

This is a cop-out, Moxie. As you know, I prefer the three-headed GOAT, or herd of GOATs. Even back when Roger was ahead of the pack in terms of career accomplishments. But the whole premise of this thread and my approach to the question is not: Who is the singular GOAT, but if we had to pick just one.

It is an impossible question, but it is just a hypothetical - and one you refuse to address, except by negating all attempts. So why not leave it at that? Refuse to play the game, but then don't insist on negating answers you don't like, which is sort of playing the game, but without taking a stance.

(Although re-reading your posts, I see that you did say "gun to the head, I wouldn't say its Rafa" - although that implies that you would say it is someone else? You know, if we want to make peace, we should all just agree it is Laver ;-))

So we agree that GOAT is artificial, and that three-headed (or more) is better. But you refuse the "gun to the head" question, therefore...bang. The point of a "gun to the head" question is to answer a question you otherwise wouldn't, because you "have to." It is an "as if" scenario - as if you have to provide an answer, even if it is near impossible.

Anyhow, I don't claim to be "dispassionate." What I claim is that I'm more interested in approaching the question as objectively as possible, than I am in defending my guy. What I have found is that whenever I try to do that, I end up arguing with people who are defending their guy.

As for me choosing the criteria, that isn't entirely fair. I'm happy to discuss the criteria, I just bring forth facts that I personally think are relevant. As I have said, we have to look at all factors, and a variety of perspectives. I'm not discounting the context that you and Kieran provide, I just don't entirely agree with the framing of it, or at least think it needs to be weighed with other factors.

So you don't have to convince me that they're all great, or that three-headed GOAT is a truer answer. As I've said countless times, I agree! If you refuse to play the "gun to the head" game, fine, I can't force you. But then might as well not negate any answers that others come up with, because then you're kind of playing.

 

[El Dude]

I don’t recall a non-troll Rafa fan claiming he’s the GOAT. If that happened, I don’t remember it. I also agree that gun to head, I wouldn’t say it’s Rafa either, if we are to embrace the Highlander (“There can be only one!”) view of the world. But I don’t think the single GOAT approach is correct anyway. It’s shortsighted and drenched with McEnroe’s hyperbolic commentary that whatever is happening right now is the greatest ever: “He has the best one-handed backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching a Gasquet match; “that’s the best backhand I’ve ever seen” while watching Federer; “I’ve never seen a better backhand” while watching Wawrinka.

So you're saying AntiPusher is a troll? He's pretty much claimed it, although not directly in those words.

Again, as I said to Moxie, I don't think the single GOAT approach is correct either, but the point of "gun to the head" is to answer a nearly impossible question.

I love Mac and his hyperbole. He changes his choice for GOAT with every Slam match, it seems.

 

[El Dude]

Already answered that, bro. I don’t think you remember me ever outlining a case for a single goat, because I don’t believe in one. But a quintingle headed goat? Players of different eras pursuing completely different ideals of greatness, which is what the history of tennis is made of?

My phone is already all over it, giving me “quintingle” in predictive text. It’s now a word, which means it’s a real thing…

Well again, I agree - as you should know. Remember my "Herd of Goats" post from seven, eight years ago?

But gun to the head doesn't allow for wiggling out, otherwise...bang.

You know, it as first a joke to Moxie, but now that I think of it, it may be that--gun to the head--Laver is the best answer. His dominance and greatness during his time is not debated. He as better than all of his peers, and dominated unlike any other. Where we can say that the Holy Trinity has surpassed Borg and Sampras, e can endlessly debate between those three. But we can't debate Laver.

As an aside, a player that gets left out is Jack Kramer. He doesn't have the Slams, but it was a very different context. From what I've read, he was utterly dominant, the "GOAT" of his time (1940s). Before him it would have to be big Bill Tilden, and after him Pancho Gonzales. Then Laver, although I think Ken Rosewall is criminally neglected and should be part of the herd.

It is easier to negate Open Era guys, because the Big Three have so clearly surpassed everyone. But Borg deserves mention, as he was the best player of the 70s and dominated like no other, until Mac dominated him for like a year. The 80s had no singular dominant player, but then Sampras dominated the 90s. Then we have the Holy Trinity.

So a different angle might be to throw out the term "GOAT" and instead look at dominance. We can approach greatness indirectly, by comparing how dominant a player was relative to his peers. Which is another angle I've advocated for in the past, but haven't found a clear and easy way to analyze it.

But the fun is discussing it. It doesn't have to be answerable, in a definitive way. In fact, if it was, then the fun would be over.

 

[Fiero425]

So you're saying AntiPusher is a troll? He's pretty much claimed it, although not directly in those words.

Again, as I said to Moxie, I don't think the single GOAT approach is correct either, but the point of "gun to the head" is to answer a nearly impossible question.

I love Mac and his hyperbole. He changes his choice for GOAT with every Slam match, it seems.

McEnroe, Wilander, and many others jumped on Nole's bandwagon after he completed his Nole-Slam winning FO in 2016 with just 12 majors! He had a little "down period" with drama and injury, but he's given me no reason to believe Fedal can be a part of some 3-headed GOAT to appease their fans! Djokovic acquired his resume in record time, defeating Fedal along the way even with detractors giving that "weak era" argument! Ten years ago Federer was "the man" even though his H2H sucked againt his closest rival! I've never thought Nadal The GOAT since his limitations are so obvious! Djokovic came along and swept them all away, acquiring records Fedal can't come close to or "ever!" I'll let you guys vacillate, hmmmm, and hawww trying to make something out of nothing, but IMO after all's said and done, The LONE GOAT w/b Djokovic!

 

[Fiero425]

Oh I hear ya, brother ….

always like the reference to Hoad—wish I could have seen what all the fuss was about

Hoad, like Djokovic was just a match away from a CYGS as well! FFS, have we forgotten so soon? It was just last week!

 

[tented]

Well again, I agree - as you should know. Remember my "Herd of Goats" post from seven, eight years ago?

But gun to the head doesn't allow for wiggling out, otherwise...bang.

You know, it as first a joke to Moxie, but now that I think of it, it may be that--gun to the head--Laver is the best answer. His dominance and greatness during his time is not debated. He as better than all of his peers, and dominated unlike any other. Where we can say that the Holy Trinity has surpassed Borg and Sampras, e can endlessly debate between those three. But we can't debate Laver.

As an aside, a player that gets left out is Jack Kramer. He doesn't have the Slams, but it as a very different context. From what I've read, he was utterly dominant, the "GOAT" of his time (1940s). Before him it would have to be big Bill Tilden, and after him Pancho Gonzales. Then Laver, although I think Ken Rosewall is criminally neglected and should be part of the herd.

It is easier to negate Open Era guys, because the Big Three have so clearly surpassed him. But Borg deserves mention, as he was the best player of the 70s and dominated like no other, until Mac dominated him for like a year. The 80s had no singular dominant player, but then Sampras dominated the 90s. Then we have the Holy Trinity.

So a different angle might be to throw out the term "GOAT" and instead look at dominance. We can approach greatness indirectly, but comparing how dominant a player was relative to his peers. Which is another angle I've advocated for in the past, but haven't found a clear and easy to analyze it.

But the fun is discussing it. It doesn't have to be answerable, in a definitive way. In fact, if it was, then the fun would be over.

This is an argument for the @nehmeth concept of GOTE: Great Of Their Era, which I’ve always thought was a wise way of looking at things, considering all of the variables throughout the decades.

 

[monfed]

Did I just read that somebody thinks that Dark Side of the Moon is the greatest album of all time?

There used to be a really good magazine called Rolling Stone that has now been taken over by zombies and they’ve often had these “greatest of all time” issues, where their concept of “all time” really means “very little time, actually, all of it recent “, and their notion of “greatest” is something fickle and strictly confined to rock, pop and some blues, and yet they’ll have us think the greatest songwriters and songs of all time have all been produced in the last 70 years. They’ve recently changed their opinion on “The Greatest Song of ALL Time” presumably to reflect their modish politics, and not seeing the irony that once they decided this one years ago, “all time” then included the future that we now live in.

This is recentism of an extreme sort, but it tells a lot about our modem need to have our era and tastes validated at the expense of our understanding of the past…

Smileys dont get you extra cred.

Unlike you I didn't look at a poll like The Rolling stones or any other magazine to make my up mind about DSOTM being the greatest album of all time. I considered DSOTM to be the greatest album because when I heard it I was like surely this is the greatest album ever and then when I went to read more about it I was like I'm not surprised that it is considered the greatest and it was running #1 for 15 or 18 years straight. That's insane for a non-pop concept album and such a feat has never been repeated so you're just showing your own prejudice and cluelessness.

The album starts and ends perfectly as if it's a story. It's like one big song. But it doesn't try to pretend to be deep like many concept albums. It also talks about the most common and important themes of life like Time, money etc and unlike other Pink Floyd albums that are darker, this one isn't dark. So the mood of the album is balanced.

Great gig in the sky vocals was recorded in the first take and the wordless song is almost otherworldly and you dont have to like opera singing to like it, that's the beauty of it. Breathe is my personal favourite, it's the ultimate song to listen in the morning with some tea.

As far as the tennis goes, I'm not going to bother because there is too much condescension and posturing by people who simply fail to understand tennis. It's not about taste or personal opinion, it's about being objective setting aside your own biases and I don't see that at all. I guess I should lower my expectations from people here.

As far as subjectivity/objectivity goes - If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck.

 

[Kieran]

Smileys dont get you extra cred.

Unlike you I didn't look at a poll like The Rolling stones or any other magazine to make my up mind about DSOTM being the greatest album of all time. I considered DSOTM to be the greatest album because when I heard it I was like surely this is the greatest album ever and then when I went to read more about it I was like I'm not surprised that it is considered the greatest and it was running #1 for 15 or 18 years straight. That's insane for a non-pop concept album and such a feat has never been repeated so you're just showing your own prejudice and cluelessness.

The album starts and ends perfectly as if it's a story. It's like one big song. But it doesn't try to pretend to be deep like many concept albums. It also talks about the most common and important themes of life like Time, money etc and unlike other Pink Floyd albums that are darker, this one isn't dark. So the mood of the album is balanced.

Great gig in the sky vocals was recorded in the first take and the wordless song is almost otherworldly and you dont have to like opera singing to like it, that's the beauty of it. Breathe is my personal favourite, it's the ultimate song to listen in the morning with some tea.

As far as the tennis goes, I'm not going to bother because there is too much condescension and posturing by people who simply fail to understand tennis. It's not about taste or personal opinion, it's about being objective setting aside your own biases and I don't see that at all. I guess I should lower my expectations from people here.

As far as subjectivity/objectivity goes - If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck.

You certainly talk like a duck, and presumably listen to music like a duck, with ears like a duck…

 

[monfed]

Good Grief Man. Do you hear yourself. "Novak didn't really come into his own 2011". That's the basic premise of what I have been saying ( I can't speak for others).. Rafa's numbers were at the top of the game and his was the player who had a winning H2H vs the top 20 every year during Roger's prime years yet you penalized him because Novak's game was still getting dismantling by the other Big Two. Yet , you based your argument on the past ten years. It's almost like Roger and Rafa were fluffiers (Don't make me explain but google HBO Real Sports episode on the studs of horse racing).

Absolutely, Rafa's totally mastery of one surface while defeating the other Big Two on all the other types of surfaces elevates his status over the rest.
Maybe my lineage is a bit Blunt like an instrument such as a sledgehammer but you still can comprehend it's meaning.

LOL@Joe not coming into his own in 2011. Now I've heard it all. Is this another one of his "subjective" takes? Hahahaha this one sure is subjective haha.

You certainly talk like a duck, and presumably listen to music like a duck, with ears like a duck…

Not my fault you have bad taste in music, clueless about tennis and a bad judge of character.

 

[Kieran]

But gun to the head doesn't allow for wiggling out, otherwise...bang.

Gun to the head isn’t very appetising, bro. I might not think too clearly! If it was a match to save my life, I’d pick Pistol Pete, on grass, indoor or hard. If the enemy got to choose the surface and chose clay, there’s only one choice. But neither of these choices are about goats, they’re about choosing a player who I’d trust to be the champion that takes that gun away, and even then I’d most likely be looking at other players and wondering if I made the right choice…

 

[El Dude]

Hoad, like Djokovic was just a match away from a CYGS as well! FFS, have we forgotten so soon? It was just last week!

During the amateur era, mind you. The best player in the sport at that time (1956) was a pro, mr Pancho Gonzales. He did beat some good players, including Rosewall, in some of those Slams, but it was a different era. Just as Laver's first CYGS was nothing comparable to his one in 1969.