GOAT Debate

by Adam D Tue 07 Oct 2014, 8:48 am

First topic message reminder :

For all GOAT debate posts, good or bad, better or worse, sickness and health.
We'll move stuff in here from other future threads, to keep it all together.

LF & JHM

Edit - I guess if this is to be for people who really want to have a GOAT debate, we'll have to remove posts from people who think the GOAT debate is worthless. So no opportunity for satire, humour or dismissiveness at the expense of the debate. Let's leave it to those who take it seriously and post accordingly. I think any poster's absence from this thread can be interpreted as having no interest in it. JHM.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:04 pm

IMBL, you want me to call you illogical instead? Are we trading personal insults now? No doubt you will deny that is an insult Laugh

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:05 pm

If I ask the question:
'Who is better out of Federer and Nadal at winning Slams when both equally healthy?'
And someone says 'Federer because he has won more Slams'- I could then also accuse them of living in a 'parallel universe'. Because in reality they haven't been equally healthy, so therefore assuming Federer would have also done better if equally healthy is speculation from a hypothetical, and therefore according to Julius 'living in a parallel universe.'

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:06 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, you want me to call you illogical instead? Are we trading personal insults now? No doubt you will deny that is an insult

I don't think illogical is an insult, I was referring to you being illogical on that particular point- because I felt your point was illogical. Even the world's most logical person can be illogical from time to time, no one is perfect.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:12 pm

Why would you even bother asking the question:
'Who is better out of Federer and Nadal at winning Slams when both equally healthy?'
We'll never know because it can never be measured. Why introduce a question based on something that hasn't happened and can never happen. It's a completely pointless question - much like the arguments you make - they are pointless arguments with unknowable answers. Making such arguments is illogical captain. They introduce far too many hypothetical elements.

by Born Slippy Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:12 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:This is a GOAT debate. What people think players might have done in a parallel universe where things are different has no relevance.

It depends on your criteria for GOAT though. If someone comes along and wins 4 straight CYGS but then never plays another match through injury then they won't have the same number of slams as Fed or weeks at number 1. However, they would undoubtably be regarded by most as the GOAT.

Maureen Connolly won every grand slam she played from the age of 16 (9 in a row). She retired at 19 after falling off a horse. We obviously can't say how the next 10 or so years would have gone but I would certainly put her above someone in the all-time list who won twelve slams over a full career.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:13 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
Your asking the question who would win more when healthy, which is hypothetical as Nadal has not been healthy! No amount of stats or percentages will impact the numbers they have now.

Fully agree, so both opinions in this debate could be shown to be using hypotheticals. If you assume Federer would have still won more slams even if Nadal was as healthy, that is also a hypothetical.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
As JHM said, debate the GOAT on what we can measure much rather than what if or could've beens.

But as I said to Julius, any debate on who is GOAT, cannot be objectively decided simply based on stats. This is because it is not a fair experiment, as we know any fair experiment would have constant variables- and you aren't seriously suggesting that all the variables in something as complex as a GOAT debate is equal are you ?

Nor does it actually have to be based on 'what if'. I see GOAT debates as seeing how difficult it is to achieve what a player has achieved given his/her circumstances.
With my definition, people will have different opinions as a lot of this is subjective!

My personal opinion at the moment is that we have a 'GOAT tier' and I feel people on this tier are: Laver, Nadal, Borg, Federer, Sampras

by Guest Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:15 pm

No Emerson? Wink

Talk about consistency.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:16 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would you even bother asking the question:
'Who is better out of Federer and Nadal at winning Slams when both equally healthy?'

Because that to me, between Federer and Nadal anyway is question on who is the better player.
Some people think ability to avoid injury is more important, in which case they will think Federer is a better player. If like me they think ability to avoid injury is not so important, they'll think 'who is better out of federer and nadal when both equally healthy' is a crucial crucial element to the GOAT debate.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
They introduce far too many hypothetical elements.

The thing is GOAT debates cannot be objectively decided, we will all have our subjective opinions. Saying you think Federer is better than Nadal is subjective, saying Federer is better than Nadal when healthy is subjective.
But I'm the one who has argued this more than anyone, remember ?

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:17 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:No Emerson?

Talk about consistency.

Born Slippy's criticism of me for that was too persuasive Laugh

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:24 pm

Born Slippy wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:This is a GOAT debate. What people think players might have done in a parallel universe where things are different has no relevance.

It depends on your criteria for GOAT though. If someone comes along and wins 4 straight CYGS but then never plays another match through injury then they won't have the same number of slams as Fed or weeks at number 1. However, they would undoubtably be regarded by most as the GOAT.

Maureen Connolly won every grand slam she played from the age of 16 (9 in a row). She retired at 19 after falling off a horse. We obviously can't say how the next 10 or so years would have gone but I would certainly put her above someone in the all-time list who won twelve slams over a full career.

Based on what they actually achieved respectively, I hope, not based on what they might have achieved if this, if that, if the other.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:25 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:But I'm the one who has argued this more than anyone, remember ?

It would be hard to forget.

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:30 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would you even bother asking the question:
'Who is better out of Federer and Nadal at winning Slams when both equally healthy?'
Because that to me, between Federer and Nadal anyway is question on who is the better player.
Some people think ability to avoid injury is more important, in which case they will think Federer is a better player. If like me they think ability to avoid injury is not so important, they'll think 'who is better out of federer and nadal when both equally healthy' is a crucial crucial element to the GOAT debate.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
They introduce far too many hypothetical elements.
The thing is GOAT debates cannot be objectively decided, we will all have our subjective opinions. Saying you think Federer is better than Nadal is subjective, saying Federer is better than Nadal when healthy is subjective.
But I'm the one who has argued this more than anyone, remember ?

So who is better if they are equally healthy? I assume by that you mean they have identical health? (because we are treating them equally in terms of health remember i.e. what has actually happened to them).

So if you mean, who is better if they have equal (identical) health, why stop there? Why stop at health? Would Nadal be better if he had Federer's serve? Would Federer have won more if he was left handed? etc etc etc.

If you want to pose a question based on events that haven't happened, we will all do that.

Going to be a good debate this.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:32 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:

So who is better if they are equally healthy? I assume by that you mean they have identical health? (because we are treating them equally in terms of health remember i.e. what has actually happened to them).

So if you mean, who is better if they have equal (identical) health, why stop there? Why stop at health? Would Nadal be better if he had Federer's serve? Would Federer have won more if he was left handed? etc etc etc.

If you want to pose a question based on events that haven't happened, we will all do that.

Going to be a good debate this.

But this is exactly my point. I do not see health (i.e. the ability to avoid injury) as very important when deciding who is the better tennis player.
However I do see, things like serve, forehand etc. as important when seeing who is the better tennis player.

by Guest Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:35 pm

Well I don't think we can compare a early retired Borg with Federer, Nadal, Laver or Sampras because he didn't play on and a non retired Borg would beat the field. I can't say for certain, but hell why not.

We can't compare an amateur Laver with the others because he didn't play in the Pro Era. I can't say for absolute certain, but it's not fair.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:38 pm

The element of competition is also a variable which has changed from Nadal to Federer. As we know any experiment to be fair needs constant variables. The variable of 'difficult of competition' for me has not stayed identical for Federer and Nadal.

Some more detail about this issue, copy and paste from another post of mine:

One stat which more or less cements why many believe that the players Federer's age did not provide tough competition is this:

Between the period 2004-2008, Murray (while he was still young) amassed more wins against Federer than Roddick, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Ferrero, Baghdatis, Hewitt, Youzhny, Agassi, Philippoussis, and Safin did put together. This list includes every single Grand Slam finalist Federer faced until 2008 apart from Nadal and Djokovic (around and above his age), as well as some other players from his generation.

Looking at the rankings throughout Federer's peak years, questions must be asked of the other players in his generation. In 2006 Ljubicic had sustained spells as world number 3 and world number 4, this is despite only even reaching 1 Grand Slam semi in his whole career ! It can also be noted that Rafael Nadal stayed comfortably at number 2 after he reached there in 2005. When Nadal was younger he had not yet adjusted well in terms of movement on hard courts and grass, and relied on clay for most tournament wins when he was a youngster. And yet players who were Federer's age and from his generation, could not even get close to knocking him from the number 2 spot. What is even more alarming is that Djokovic, when he was just 20 years old, reached number 3 behind Nadal and Federer in 2007. This was at the time when players who were around Federer's age and of his generation should have been at their prime, but both the world number 2 and 3 were youngsters !

If we have a close look at the players of his generation, it's clear none of them could challenge Federer like Nadal can:

Haas's career had been decimated by injury in 2002, Nalbandian showed promise but never even reached a Grand Slam final after 2003. Hewitt played well at the start of the decade, but rapidly declined after 2005 falling out of the top 10. Safin was incredibly inconsistent, and plummeted after winning the Australian Open in 2005.
And lastly we have Andy Roddick, the only player who really consistently reached Grand Slam finals between 2004-2007 apart from Federer. Apart from 2009 where his baseline game improved, his game was very reliant on serve- and he did not have the groundstrokes to trouble Federer in rallies.

So overall I think it is fair to say that players of Federer's generation around his age, who should have been challenging Federer when the Swiss was at his prime, did not provide tough competition- certainly not as tough as the generation younger than Federer.

by Matchpoint Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:42 pm

It Must Be Love
Another observation I make:
......If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count....

IMBL, have you retracted this statement?

I stand by my last post, which is my understanding of this is hypothesis as you worded above, that nadal in
"would be COMFORTABLY above Federer in the slam count". So how would he be above Fed if you're not hypothetically adding your imaginary slams that he never won to his current 14?

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:42 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Well I don't think we can compare a early retired Borg with Federer, Nadal, Laver or Sampras because he didn't play on and a non retired Borg would beat the field. I can't say for certain, but hell why not.

We can't compare an amateur Laver with the others because he didn't play in the Pro Era. I can't say for absolute certain, but it's not fair.

Well as I said, the GOAT debate comes down to for you 'who did the best for their specific circumstances'.
There's no one right answer, and there will be a myriad of opinions. If you feel that using aggregate stats has too many variables and hypotheticals thrown up, perhaps you can also use 'average' stats ? On average stats, which as Born Slippy said is used in other sports, it is Nadal and Borg who do very well.
Nadal vs Borg is an interesting one, but if I was forced to choose I'd personally give Nadal the slight edge- he does better on both average and aggregate stats and for me has done better given his personal circumstances.
You'd think given that Nadal would be considerably ahead of Borg, however a totally external variable is how Borg adjusted to Wimbledon and French Open in such a short period of time when there was a big difference between the two. Federer did it in 2009, Nadal twice; but when they did it it was not as difficult to adjust- let's be honest. So see, external variables and factors can absolutely affect our opinion on this.

by Guest Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:44 pm

But you said.....

Oh nevermind picard

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:46 pm

Blue Moon wrote:

Another observation I make:
......If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count....

IMBL, have you retracted this statement?

No, I think it's very likely if his injury record was better he would be ahead of Federer in terms of the Slam count. Of course I can't prove this, but I feel he'd win a few more, and Fed would have been stopped from winning a few and not get up to 17.
I certainly don't think the slam gap would have been 13, so I'm really not sure where you plucked that out of.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:49 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:
Going to be a good debate this.

It has been a very good debate so far, on the whole very civil, and people not scared to express their opinions- exactly the sort of debate I like Smile

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:50 pm

Legendkiller- question for you:
what is your opinion on this ? Do you think there is a GOAT tier ? If so, do you think people within the tier itself can be better than each other ?

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:53 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:

So who is better if they are equally healthy? I assume by that you mean they have identical health? (because we are treating them equally in terms of health remember i.e. what has actually happened to them).

So if you mean, who is better if they have equal (identical) health, why stop there? Why stop at health? Would Nadal be better if he had Federer's serve? Would Federer have won more if he was left handed? etc etc etc.

If you want to pose a question based on events that haven't happened, we will all do that.

Going to be a good debate this.
But this is exactly my point. I do not see health (i.e. the ability to avoid injury) as very important when deciding who is the better tennis player.
However I do see, things like serve, forehand etc. as important when seeing who is the better tennis player.

Hey, you're the one bringing health into it all! You're the one who was asking the question "who is better if equally healthy" for some reason. No one else. If it is not very important, why are you asking the question?

Weeks at No.1 would probably be a good as indication as to who possesess the best all round skills then? Generally being top of the rankings means your all-round game is better than everyone elses on tour? I'm sure the rankings discriminate against folk as well. Even though they apply equally to everyone.

Failling that..how about tournament wins? Failing that..majors? Failing that...my opinion? Which I'll spend as long as it takes trying to present as fact.

Anyway..i'm going to just take to re-posting some earlier posts in this thread to re-iterate my point.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:54 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Blue Moon wrote:

Another observation I make:
......If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count....

IMBL, have you retracted this statement?
No, I think it's very likely if his injury record was better he would be ahead of Federer in terms of the Slam count. Of course I can't prove this, but I feel he'd win a few more, and Fed would have been stopped from winning a few and not get up to 17.

So are you prepared to say that you are being entirely hypothetical there?

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:57 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:

Hey, you're the one bringing health into at all! You're the one who was asking the question "who is better if equally healthy" for some reason. No one else. If it is not very important, why are you asking the question?

Not very important? Of course not !
Judging who is the better player out of two when both are healthy I think is one of the most crucial elements of judging who is the better player.

Injuries can affect not just slam stats, but also weeks at number one, as well as overall title stats.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 5:59 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:

So are you prepared to say that you are being entirely hypothetical there?

Yes... we've been through this Julius.

Just like if Blue Moon has asked the question 'if the variable of injuries was constant between the two- who do you feel would have more Slams'- and I had answered Federer, that would also be entirely hypothetical.
And any fair experiment would look to have constant and equal variables, so that would be a fair question.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:06 pm

Ok - so having said that you had avoided hypotheticals, you now admit to using hypotheticals. Just wanted to clear that up.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:11 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:Ok - so having said that you had avoided hypotheticals, you now admit to using hypotheticals. Just wanted to clear that up.

It seems we're just going round in circles here Julius, I am using hypotheticals but ANY answer to the question 'who is better out of Federer and Nadal when they are both equally healthy' would be answered by a hypothetical.

The question is why is the question 'who is better out of Federer and Nadal when both equally healthy' relevant- and I'd say it's because how good they are when they are healthy forms the major part of my judgement on who is the better player.
If we look at the gross stats, we have to acknowledge that the 'injury' variable is not equal (well unless you think Federer and Nadal have got injured equally), and variables that are not constant means it is not a fair experiment.

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:12 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:

Hey, you're the one bringing health into at all! You're the one who was asking the question "who is better if equally healthy" for some reason. No one else. If it is not very important, why are you asking the question?
Not very important? Of course not !
Judging who is the better player out of two when both are healthy I think is one of the most crucial elements of judging who is the better player.

Injuries can affect not just slam stats, but also weeks at number one, as well as overall title stats.

They sure can. His last comebacks (from periods of rest) in 2010 and 2013 yielded multiple slam-winning years for him. Something he'd only managed once before in his entire career (when he won 2 in 2008). So very unlikely without him having time-out he would have accumulated so many slams.

I suppose they also affect H2H as well. Missing only the portions of the seasons (and the slams) where you are historically not as good. This would also affect career win loss percentage as well.

But basically, to summarise, Nadal is the best. Any stat that doesn't show him to be the best can be dismissed (because of external factors where my presented opinion is fact). The stats that do - well they are right.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:13 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:

They sure can. His last comebacks (from periods of rest) in 2010 and 2013 yielded multiple slam-winning years for him.

Well he needed periods of rest to recover from injury, because he didn't look after his body as well as Federer did.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:16 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Ok - so having said that you had avoided hypotheticals, you now admit to using hypotheticals. Just wanted to clear that up.
It seems we're just going round in circles here Julius, I am using hypotheticals but ANY answer to the question 'who is better out of Federer and Nadal when they are both equally healthy' would be answered by a hypothetical.

The question is why is the question 'who is better out of Federer and Nadal when both equally healthy' relevant- and I'd say it's because how good they are when they are healthy forms the major part of my judgement on who is the better player.
If we look at the gross stats, we have to acknowledge that the 'injury' variable is not equal (well unless you think Federer and Nadal have got injured equally), and variables that are not constant means it is not a fair experiment.

Yes but you are only changing one variable - you cannot obtain a fair experiment. If that is the goal, then it is doomed to failure. In fact the debate is almost by definition doomed to failure. I certainly feel that way about most of what has been posted so far.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:18 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:But basically, to summarise, Nadal is the best. Any stat that doesn't show him to be the best can be dismissed (because of external factors where my presented opinion is fact). The stats that do - well they are right.

Yes - it would be good to leave it at that.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:22 pm

If you don't wish to debate this, you don't have to, I have started two new threads in the past 2 days on the main tennis page that have nothing to do with the GOAT debate !

Look, we all have our opinions, I'd say people if they feel strongly about it can state it and then see if it stands up to scrutiny during a debate.

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:22 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Ok - so having said that you had avoided hypotheticals, you now admit to using hypotheticals. Just wanted to clear that up.
It seems we're just going round in circles here Julius, I am using hypotheticals but ANY answer to the question 'who is better out of Federer and Nadal when they are both equally healthy' would be answered by a hypothetical.

The question is why is the question 'who is better out of Federer and Nadal when both equally healthy' relevant- and I'd say it's because how good they are when they are healthy forms the major part of my judgement on who is the better player.
If we look at the gross stats, we have to acknowledge that the 'injury' variable is not equal (well unless you think Federer and Nadal have got injured equally), and variables that are not constant means it is not a fair experiment.

So again, you want to change the injury variable to be equal (does not exist in real world). Fair enough. You see the injury card as not being important so lets change the variable to something else.

Who is better out of Federer and Nadal when both have equal back-hands (if both have double-handed backhands).

If we change all the variables to be constant - wouldn't they be exactly the same! So fairness is an impossibilty? (which seems to be the case here as you are adament Nadal is the GOAT despite evidence to the contrary).

Or are we only changing certain variables that benefit your (already made up) conclusion?

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:25 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:
So again, you want to change the injury variable to be equal (does not exist in real world). Fair enough. You see the injury card as not being important so lets change the variable to something else.

Yes, as I feel the ability to not get injured is not very important, I think it would be a fairer experiment if we tried to judge how good two players were when they are healthy.

Johnyjeep wrote:Who is better out of Federer and Nadal when both have equal back-hands (if both have double-handed backhands).

No!
I think who has a better backhand (and people can choose how many hands they have on it) is an important aspect of seeing who is a better player; so making that variable constant would not be justified.

by Johnyjeep Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:26 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:But basically, to summarise, Nadal is the best. Any stat that doesn't show him to be the best can be dismissed (because of external factors where my presented opinion is fact). The stats that do - well they are right.

Yes - it would be good to leave it at that.

Agreed. I am out.

by hawkeye Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:27 pm

It's odd. There is an argument for both Nadal and Federer being the better player and opinions by experts and fans are divided. But here on 606v2 the argument that Nadal may be the better player results in mocking dismissal. Federer was triumphed as the best of all time even before he won Wimbledon in 2009 his 15th slam. Was there all this angst prior to this win from Sampras fans?

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:31 pm

hawkeye wrote:It's odd. There is an argument for both Nadal and Federer being the better player and opinions by experts and fans are divided. But here on 606v2 the argument that Nadal may be the better player results in mocking dismissal. Federer was triumphed as the best of all time even before he won Wimbledon in 2009 his 15th slam. Was there all this angst prior to this win from Sampras fans?

Are you kidding - have you forgotten the bile directed at Federer from Sampras fans on the old 606?

No-one is mocking anything. It's just that IMBL's arguments don't stand up to scrutiny, that's all.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:32 pm

hawkeye wrote:It's odd. There is an argument for both Nadal and Federer being the better player and opinions by experts and fans are divided. But here on 606v2 the argument that Nadal may be the better player results in mocking dismissal. Federer was triumphed as the best of all time even before he won Wimbledon in 2009 his 15th slam. Was there all this angst prior to this win from Sampras fans?

I don't mind angst etc. people will want to defend their opinions, if they can.
Julius people are entitled to their opinions, whether you agree or not. So far I have not seen any real points which I see as reasonable which contradicts my opinion.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:36 pm

I'm sure you don't. Other people do though.
I'm entitled to my opinion whether you agree or not.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:38 pm

Edited out

by Guest Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:42 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Legendkiller- question for you:
what is your opinion on this ? Do you think there is a GOAT tier ? If so, do you think people within the tier itself can be better than each other ?

I don't so much buy into a GOAT tier system. When you take into account what players have achieved. For example look at Borg doing the FO Wimbledon double twice and twice reaching 3 Grand Slam Finals in a calendar year. You have Laver's Season Grand Slam. Agassi's Career Grand Slam on the all surfaces before their dumbing down. Sampras's six years in a row end of season number 1 ranking. In essence those achievements would warrant any place on a GOAT CV. I don't limit it to Men though. You have Grafs Calendar Golden Grand Slam. Serena Williams Singles and Doubles Golden Career Grand Slam and Navratilova's 344 career titles.

To me it is impossible to separate the players.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:44 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Legendkiller- question for you:
what is your opinion on this ? Do you think there is a GOAT tier ? If so, do you think people within the tier itself can be better than each other ?

I don't so much buy into a GOAT tier system. When you take into account what players have achieved. For example look at Borg doing the FO Wimbledon double twice and twice reaching 3 Grand Slam Finals in a calendar year. You have Laver's Season Grand Slam. Agassi's Career Grand Slam on the all surfaces before their dumbing down. Sampras's six years in a row end of season number 1 ranking. In essence those achievements would warrant any place on a GOAT CV. I don't limit it to Men though. You have Grafs Calendar Golden Grand Slam. Serena Williams Singles and Doubles Golden Career Grand Slam and Navratilova's 344 career titles.

To me it is impossible to separate the players.

Yes, very good points.
That is why I have GOAT tiers though, because players on that tier itself is so difficult to separate.
Of course it does raise the further question as to who is on that tier itself, which will divide opinion.

by Guest Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:53 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Legendkiller- question for you:
what is your opinion on this ? Do you think there is a GOAT tier ? If so, do you think people within the tier itself can be better than each other ?

I don't so much buy into a GOAT tier system. When you take into account what players have achieved. For example look at Borg doing the FO Wimbledon double twice and twice reaching 3 Grand Slam Finals in a calendar year. You have Laver's Season Grand Slam. Agassi's Career Grand Slam on the all surfaces before their dumbing down. Sampras's six years in a row end of season number 1 ranking. In essence those achievements would warrant any place on a GOAT CV. I don't limit it to Men though. You have Grafs Calendar Golden Grand Slam. Serena Williams Singles and Doubles Golden Career Grand Slam and Navratilova's 344 career titles.

To me it is impossible to separate the players.
Yes, very good points.
That is why I have GOAT tiers though, because players on that tier itself is so difficult to separate.
Of course it does raise the further question as to who is on that tier itself, which will divide opinion.

Even with tiers it gets more complicated.

To me the GOAT debate on a forum is always doomed to failure because you can never take out personal biases or prejudices.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 6:56 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
legendkillarV2 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:Legendkiller- question for you:
what is your opinion on this ? Do you think there is a GOAT tier ? If so, do you think people within the tier itself can be better than each other ?

I don't so much buy into a GOAT tier system. When you take into account what players have achieved. For example look at Borg doing the FO Wimbledon double twice and twice reaching 3 Grand Slam Finals in a calendar year. You have Laver's Season Grand Slam. Agassi's Career Grand Slam on the all surfaces before their dumbing down. Sampras's six years in a row end of season number 1 ranking. In essence those achievements would warrant any place on a GOAT CV. I don't limit it to Men though. You have Grafs Calendar Golden Grand Slam. Serena Williams Singles and Doubles Golden Career Grand Slam and Navratilova's 344 career titles.

To me it is impossible to separate the players.
Yes, very good points.
That is why I have GOAT tiers though, because players on that tier itself is so difficult to separate.
Of course it does raise the further question as to who is on that tier itself, which will divide opinion.

Even with tiers it gets more complicated.

To me the GOAT debate on a forum is always doomed to failure because you can never take out personal biases or prejudices.

Yes, as I said deciding who is on the tiers itself is complicated.

I also agree that people will let personal preferences influence their position in a debate. Federer fans who dislike Nadal will hate the idea they're on a equal tier, some Nadal fans will insist he is the GOAT, same for some Sampras fans in the past etc.
However I am of the belief that during debates we should play the ball, not the man. Even if someone is a murderer and a criminal, in any particular debate he may come up with some valid points; while even a saint may make some errors in analysis. I don't normally reply by trying to attack the person who has written it, but the arguments he/she has written.

by LuvSports! Wed 03 Dec 2014, 7:03 pm

A question for all.
Who to you is the GOAT or is it there is no GOAT?

by Matchpoint Wed 03 Dec 2014, 7:17 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
Blue Moon wrote:

Another observation I make:
......If his injury record had been one of a normal player, it's very likely he would be comfortably above Federer in the slam count....

IMBL, have you retracted this statement?
No, I think it's very likely if his injury record was better he would be ahead of Federer in terms of the Slam count. Of course I can't prove this, but I feel he'd win a few more, and Fed would have been stopped from winning a few and not get up to 17.
I certainly don't think the slam gap would have been 13, so I'm really not sure where you plucked that out of.

You misunderstood. 13 is a typo for 14, sorry my bad. I meant to say 14 referring to Nadal's current slam count, nothing to do with the slam gap.

You admit it yourself, you have ZERO BASIS ("(I can't prove this") to support your hypothesis that nadal would win a few more and Fed stopped from winning a few and not get up to 17. And yet you're pushing this aggrandised bluff as though it's fact. What's the matter with you? you know that we are talking sports where the records rule. An athlete is only as good or bad as his records and nothing can effectively change 17>14, for now anyway. Why not just let the guy come back to prove his ultimate worth and answer unanswered questions re his legacy?

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 7:29 pm

Blue Moon wrote:
You misunderstood. 13 is a typo for 14, sorry my bad. I meant to say 14 referring to Nadal's current slam count, nothing to do with the slam gap.

Phew I thought you were accusing me of saying Nadal would have 13 more Slams than Federer, which I never did.

Blue Moon wrote:
You admit it yourself, you have ZERO BASIS ("(I can't prove this") to support your hypothesis that nadal would win a few more and Fed stopped from winning a few and not get up to 17. And yet you're pushing this aggrandised bluff as though it's fact. What's the matter with you? you know that we are talking sports where the records rule. An athlete is only as good or bad as his records and nothing can effectively change 17>14, for now anyway. Why not just let the guy come back to prove his ultimate worth and answer unanswered questions re his legacy?

No, I'm afraid your argument here is based on a fallacy. Let me explain.

I think injuries are a factor which has affected Nadal to a much greater extent than Federer. I think injuries as well, as Federer's easier competition, is the reason Federer has more Slams than Nadal.
In any 'fair experiment' we should look to consider how things would look if the variables were constant. The question which comes next in terms of injuries is whether if Nadal and Federer had the same injury record (constant variable) who would have won more Slams. Any answer to this is a hypothetical, even if you think Federer would have won more slams, then you are still speculating and cannot prove your case.
A statistics which I thought was particularly interesting in this discussion was that on average for every slam entered Nadal has actually won a higher percentage than Federer. This is both for overall career, and if we take Federer at 39 slams (which is how many Nadal has currently entered).
So perhaps some will feel that looking at an average performance level per slam, which cannot be affected by withdrawal from tournaments due to injury, and they will see that Nadal is above Federer on that count.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 7:37 pm

IMBL, your argument is based on a fallacy and does not bear scrutiny. You are changing one variable, when there are hundreds, and considering that 'fair'. It is almost beyond ridiculous.

by It Must Be Love Wed 03 Dec 2014, 7:43 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, your argument is based on a fallacy and does not bear scrutiny. You are changing one variable, when there are hundreds, and considering that 'fair'. It is almost beyond ridiculous.

I've already addressed this point earlier in this thread. You have also misquoted me, I have never said just changing one variable would make it fair, it shows that you have to resort to misquoting me to argue back.

The more variables you make constant, the closer you get to what would be a fair experiment. I would never claim that changing just one variable is enough makes it a fair experiment, there are more factors. As long as you make any variable constant for both players, it is not inherently unfair to either player (as long as you take into account that Federer has been better at avoiding injuries than Nadal in this specific instance).

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 03 Dec 2014, 7:50 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:IMBL, your argument is based on a fallacy and does not bear scrutiny. You are changing one variable, when there are hundreds, and considering that 'fair'. It is almost beyond ridiculous.
I've already addressed this point earlier in this thread. You have also misquoted me, I have never said just changing one variable would make it fair, it shows that you have to resort to misquoting me to argue back.

The implication was fairly clear. However, if you wish not to be misunderstood, please present your arguments with more clarity and less room for misinterpretation.

by Sponsored content