The Goat Debate

[mick1303]

WTA rulebook has explicit Gender Participation Policy (https://wta-prod-photo-files.s3.amazona ... Policy.pdf).

ATP rulebook has no such thing.

[ponchi101]

Wouldn't we agree that if a woman transitions to a male identity, she gains no advantage other than a new gender identity if the new HE wants to play in the ATP? Therefore, the ATP really would have no issues if that case would happen?
The reverse process is not equivalent. We can remember Renee Richards in the '70's, although she was not successful in the WTA.

[mick1303]

Wouldn't we agree that if a woman transitions to a male identity, she gains no advantage other than a new gender identity if the new HE wants to play in the ATP? Therefore, the ATP really would have no issues if that case would happen?
The reverse process is not equivalent. We can remember Renee Richards in the '70's, although she was not successful in the WTA.

Not only that. I'm pretty sure that if regular female player would decide to pursue this route - try to enroll in ATP and participate along with male players, ATP would not prohibit it basing on gender only. But exclusively on merit - meaning her results. I think something like that happened in golf once, and PGA allowed it.

[ponchi101]

Not that this was unexpected, but Novak has passed Martina for the #2 position in weeks as #1. He is now at 333.
By now, I would say that he will pass Steffi (377). The new question is: can he reach 400?

[mick1303]

Not that this was unexpected, but Novak has passed Martina for the #2 position in weeks as #1. He is now at 333.
By now, I would say that he will pass Steffi (377). The new question is: can he reach 400?

As I've already pointed out, these comparisons IMO are classic cases of comparing apples with oranges. But even when looking at this new reality for men and women separately - one can't help but wonder how much "slowing down" tours affects the ranking movement at the top. I think this is not a coincidence that both male and female #1 have a stronghold on this position. Players are travel less due to various forms of quarantine restrictions. Even though most tournaments proceed - the competition is somewhat "watered down", because not all best players are always available. It is impossible to quantify of course - how much it affected the overall outcome, but future tennis historians may put an asterisk to Novak's record of weeks at #1.

[ponchi101]

I am not fond of asterisks, but I am fond of explaining the situations. Asterisks make it look as if the achievement is not valid. I prefer to have the explanations, which give the proper flavor to the richness of the sport and its history.
In the end, Novak's achievements will make for a very interesting discussion and talk. Time will pass. He will become an elder in the sport, perhaps celebrated all over in the same way the McEnroe is. Add to that the fact that he will be president of Serbia one of these days, and his lore will be large.

[meganfernandez]

I am not fond of asterisks, but I am fond of explaining the situations. Asterisks make it look as if the achievement is not valid. I prefer to have the explanations, which give the proper flavor to the richness of the sport and its history.
In the end, Novak's achievements will make for a very interesting discussion and talk. Time will pass. He will become an elder in the sport, perhaps celebrated all over in the same way the McEnroe is. Add to that the fact that he will be president of Serbia one of these days, and his lore will be large.

The more time that passes, the more the numbers and achievements harden into history. The x-factors fade. Djokovic will be considered the GOAT in a couple generations. We'll be mumbling about Federer and Nadal through our dentures.

[mick1303]

I think it used to be the case when all the past was in some kind of haze which covered imperfections, therefore the players from yesteryear were legendary and better than the modern by definition. I doubt that future tennis fans and historians will lack a critical thinking and go for simplified opinions. The numbers are getting more and more available in the Internet age. The numbers are not fading into obscurity. If someone is willing to dig deeper, he'll have a means to do so. Take Masters 1000 (previous Super 9) for instance. On the surface - Djokovic has 36 titles, Nadal has the same number and Federer - 28. But there is a wrinkle - these tournaments weren't always the same. They used to be with best of 5 finals, but then this faded away. And IMO winning such Masters holds a little bit more weight than the one with best of 3 finals. Djokovic won only 1 out of his 36 masters finals in best of 5 format. Nadal won 5 of those. Federer won 8. This is just an example that simplification and relying of "easy" numbers does not always yield the most objective result. To summarize - I'm not buying "harden into history" narrative.

[ashkor87]

If Rafa nor Nole come around, Federer would have retired already, with 25 slams and having lost interest in the sport after burying two generations of players without as much as a speck of blood on his white Wimbledon jacket. The three drove each other to get better and better.
Whoever voted other, please, don't tease us that way! Who? Sampras? Borg? Emerson? Lucho Horna?

My general interpretation of how people pick their metrics to decide who is the GOAT is to pick their GOAT and find which metric makes that player the GOAT. I consider this approach to be self-delusional. So I went with a metric and let the records fall where they may. I decide that the best metric is the number of Grand Slam singles titles.

Therefore, the GOAT currently is Serena Williams.
When the current Big Three ATP players retire, the GOAT will probably be Novak Djokovic.
When all the currently active players retire, the GOAT might be Naomi Osaka.

yes, but remember that Grand Slams titles began to be counted seriously only recently - Navratilova did not even play in many AusOpens because she didnt think it was worth it. In the not-so-distant past, many people did not even bother to play the Australian because it was the LAST event of the year, not the first - and unless there was a calendar slam on the line, many players didnt think it was worth it.. I remember McEnroe once saying he was so happy to have stopped Borg in the USO because it meant he didnt have to go to Australian to stop his calendar year slam..

[ashkor87]

Djokovic has a head to head winning record against both Nadal and Federer

.makes it hard to argue for either of them..whether or not ypu think Djoko is the best, how can either Federer or Nadal be the greatest when Djoko has a winning record against them?
My personal favourite is Pancho Gonzales

[Liamvalid]

Djokovic has a head to head winning record against both Nadal and Federer

.makes it hard to argue for either of them..whether or not ypu think Djoko is the best, how can either Federer or Nadal be the greatest when Djoko has a winning record against them?
My personal favourite is Pancho Gonzales

Oh I can argue all day about how Djokovic is not greater than either of Fedal. Most successful of all time? He’s already there. Greatest of all time? Nah

[ponchi101]

I am not his fan, you know that.
But:
He is tied in grand slams with both of them, PLUS, he has at least two of each. Something they don't.
He is third in total tournaments, compared to them (fifth overall).
In every other metric, he is ahead.
So, as this is the thread: how do you reconcile the numbers with the NOT GOAT? I always like to read that opinion.

[ashkor87]

I think the GOAT question is a very subjective one. My definition would be - who at his best would have beaten any other player ever? Impossible to say, of course, across eras..and he/she must have played at that level for a bit, not just once or twice...for me, it is Gonzales.

[ashkor87]

Djokovic has a head to head winning record against both Nadal and Federer

.makes it hard to argue for either of them..whether or not ypu think Djoko is the best, how can either Federer or Nadal be the greatest when Djoko has a winning record against them?
My personal favourite is Pancho Gonzales

Oh I can argue all day about how Djokovic is not greater than either of Fedal. Most successful of all time? He’s already there. Greatest of all time? Nah

mine is not an argument for Djokovic, only an argument AGAINST Nadal and Federer!

[ashkor87]

Just for fun: I also did this exercise one afternoon when I had nothing better to do:
Djokovic is a bit younger than Nadal, who is also a bit younger than Federer, so I thought it best to control for age.
on the assumption that a player is at his best between the ages of 23 and 33, I compiled head to head records of Federer/Nadal and Djokovic only considering results of matches played when BOTH were in this age range.
Result:
Djokovic: Federer 11:10
Nadal: Federer 11:9
Djokovic: Nadal 19:10

the data speaks....