The Goat Debate

[ashkor87]

As I have remarked earlier, number of majors began to be relevant only recently..so can only be used to compare The big 3 today..how fitting and poetic it would be if they all ended up on 20! The Australian has begun to be taken seriously by the players only after it switched from being the last tournament of the year to the first..Navratilova , for instance, has passed up several AOs simply because she didn't think it was worth her trouble..(of course, in earlier times, of Laver et al, people did think the AO was important simply because of them)

[ponchi101]

I see your point, Moz, but then we are talking about PEOPLE, not PLAYERS. For example, neither Arthur Ashe not BJK should have their names attached to the National Tennis Center facilities, if ONLY playing stats mattered. Ashe and BJK are perfect examples of players that transcended the sport, which is why they are remembered fondly and their names are attached to the Stadium and the Complex. Philip Chatrier is another name that really could not be attached to the stadium in RG. He is there for other reasons.
My opinion about Navratilova being the women's GOAT includes my fondness for her game, but she still comes short when it comes to stats against Steffi. And regarding Novak, I believe he is the least worthy of the three current candidates in terms of the kind of person he is, but I am not measuring him by that. This GOAT category, to me, includes solely what has been achieved within the lines of the court.
Heck, I was willing to give Pete the GOAT crown before these three came along, even though he had no RG's and there were some other things missing. But with these three guys numbers up there, there is no way, to me, that I can give the GOAT title to anybody outside the group. But I only am thinking about inside the lines.

[mick1303]

I see your point, Moz, but then we are talking about PEOPLE, not PLAYERS. For example, neither Arthur Ashe not BJK should have their names attached to the National Tennis Center facilities, if ONLY playing stats mattered. Ashe and BJK are perfect examples of players that transcended the sport, which is why they are remembered fondly and their names are attached to the Stadium and the Complex. Philip Chatrier is another name that really could not be attached to the stadium in RG. He is there for other reasons.
My opinion about Navratilova being the women's GOAT includes my fondness for her game, but she still comes short when it comes to stats against Steffi. And regarding Novak, I believe he is the least worthy of the three current candidates in terms of the kind of person he is, but I am not measuring him by that. This GOAT category, to me, includes solely what has been achieved within the lines of the court.
Heck, I was willing to give Pete the GOAT crown before these three came along, even though he had no RG's and there were some other things missing. But with these three guys numbers up there, there is no way, to me, that I can give the GOAT title to anybody outside the group. But I only am thinking about inside the lines.

I think you are selling Navratilova a bit short here. Yes, Graf won more slams and has better percentages. But Navratilova has massive advantage in cumulative stats. 1439 matches won (Steffi - 891). Nav won 167 tournaments to Steffi's 109. I did not run weighted ranking for WTA, but I suspect that she is close or even has higher weighted ranking.

[ponchi101]

I wrote, in the previous forum, that I thought the women's GOAT was Navs. But, as you said above, incomplete sets of data are not of your liking. In this case, sure, Steffi has fewer tourneys and fewer wins, but the other data are in her favor. You have run the weighted rankings, and maybe Navs is higher there, but Steffi retired earlier. It would take a complete picture, which I did some years ago (or tried to; I did not do weighted ranking). In the end, as good as Navs was at her peak (83-87), Steffi's numbers are frigging impressive.
And there is a certain woman whose name shall not be mentioned, who also has some numbers that are mind-blowing. 198 total tournaments, a winning percentage against top 10 players in the 90% range. Still, one has to look at a lot of numbers.

[ashkor87]

One way to compare players across eras is to look at their performance against good players who spanned eras..bridge players..Agassi, Connors, Newcombe among the men, Hingis among the women...

[mick1303]

I wrote, in the previous forum, that I thought the women's GOAT was Navs. But, as you said above, incomplete sets of data are not of your liking. In this case, sure, Steffi has fewer tourneys and fewer wins, but the other data are in her favor. You have run the weighted rankings, and maybe Navs is higher there, but Steffi retired earlier. It would take a complete picture, which I did some years ago (or tried to; I did not do weighted ranking). In the end, as good as Navs was at her peak (83-87), Steffi's numbers are frigging impressive.
And there is a certain woman whose name shall not be mentioned, who also has some numbers that are mind-blowing. 198 total tournaments, a winning percentage against top 10 players in the 90% range. Still, one has to look at a lot of numbers.

That unnamed player has another mind-boggling stat (although it is limited to Open era only). She won 56% of tournaments that she entered! Steffi won 46% (almost), Navs won close to 41%, Serena won 29.5 %... We shall also mention Chris Evert who won 43%...

[mick1303]

One way to compare players across eras is to look at their performance against good players who spanned eras..bridge players..Agassi, Connors, Newcombe among the men, Hingis among the women...

I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.

[ashkor87]

One way to compare players across eras is to look at their performance against good players who spanned eras..bridge players..Agassi, Connors, Newcombe among the men, Hingis among the women...

I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.

Agree it is not reliable .just another perspective to flesh out the picture..

[ponchi101]

...

I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.

BTW, Mick. You can see that the table in the first page has space for more stats. Feel free to tell me what other figures can be added, and I will put them there.

[mick1303]

...

I do not consider such things reliable. The name may be the same, but the form of the player is different (sometimes drastically so).
And again - this is another stat picked out of broader picture. These narrow stats can prove whatever the person is looking for.

BTW, Mick. You can see that the table in the first page has space for more stats. Feel free to tell me what other figures can be added, and I will put them there.

Criteria to add - IMO if you have some criterion of cumulative nature, it shall be balanced by the criterion that is based on the same data but of relative nature. And vice versa. For example - Total Number of Tournaments won - Share of tournamens won out of all entered.

The "Percentage in the finals" is grossly misleading, because it awards the player who lost in the semis (or earlier) over the player who reached the final. This is just plain wrong. If you want to study Slams performance deeper than just titles, you could pick accumulated ranking in slams and win percentage in slams.

[ashkor87]

Also called Pancho

He was ranked #1 in the world 8 years in a row 1954-62, beat every Wimbledon champion for 10 years in a row, beat Laver in 1970 at the age of 41, when Laver was close to his best.
I consider him to be the greatest...

[ti-amie]

Is it true that "Pancho" Gonzalez also perfected the serve and volley now technique so many in the US are in love with? I would say he invented it but I'm not good on tennis history especially back then.

[mick1303]

Also called Pancho

He was ranked #1 in the world 8 years in a row 1954-62, beat every Wimbledon champion for 10 years in a row, beat Laver in 1970 at the age of 41, when Laver was close to his best.
I consider him to be the greatest...

You sound like Gonzales was beating Laver like a drum. In reality in Open Era portion Laver leads 8-2 head-to-head. My pre-open database of results is not that complete, but from what I have during 64-67 they played 23 times and Laver leads 16-7.

[ponchi101]

Is it true that "Pancho" Gonzalez also perfected the serve and volley now technique so many in the US are in love with? I would say he invented it but I'm not good on tennis history especially back then.

I don't know if he perfected the S&V game, but he was one of the first players to play the American power game of that era, together with Kramer. Serve and volley, attack the net at any opportunity. In the distant past now. I also always wondered why it was called the Big Game, and why it was tied to Americans. Not like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and all the other Aussies were not practicing it too.

[ti-amie]

Is it true that "Pancho" Gonzalez also perfected the serve and volley now technique so many in the US are in love with? I would say he invented it but I'm not good on tennis history especially back then.

I don't know if he perfected the S&V game, but he was one of the first players to play the American power game of that era, together with Kramer. Serve and volley, attack the net at any opportunity. In the distant past now. I also always wondered why it was called the Big Game, and why it was tied to Americans. Not like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe and all the other Aussies were not practicing it too.

Thanks.