More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1? - Page 5 - MensTennisForums.com

View Poll Results: More important?
Slams 44 88.00%
Weeks at #1 6 12.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #61 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 12:59 AM
country flag Tag
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Age: 27
Posts: 3,262
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

chang also had several other slam finals, plus masters. only thing he didn't have was weeks at no 1, peaked at no 2

chang over rios, easily

anyway, the most important thing for a GOAT candidate is their wins over the muggiest players to ever mug it up at the top of the game
Tag is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 01:25 AM
Registered User
 
Federer in 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 7,771
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

"Oh well what's the point of this poll?! MTF is full of Fedtards anyway so they are gonna vote for Slams cause Fed has the most. Oh wait..."


ROGER FEDERER

'Roger Federer is the best ever' - Everyone else other than John McEnroe*

*Not anymore...

4 AO - 1 RG - 7 W - 5 USO

Quote:
Originally Posted by nadalfan2013 View Post
Standing ovation for Nadal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nadalfan2013 View Post
Standing ovation for Federer. Disgusting.
Federer in 2 is offline  
post #63 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 01:35 AM
Registered User
 
uxyzapenje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: At home.
Posts: 5,312
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

Slams. But I voted for weeks at #1 bcs I don't think is THAT big of a difference as the poll shows it. I think the question would be like 1 Slam > 1 full year as #1 or 1 Slam < 1 full year as #1... Or if Ferrer or Delpo (or any non current top4 player) would (or was since now there's no chance for that to happen) somehow be ranked no1 at the end of this year, with Novak, Rafa, Roger and Andy winning 1 Slam each, who would be the best player of the year?

Djokovic | Tipsarevic | Querrey
uxyzapenje is offline  
post #64 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 03:00 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,937
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post

Who would you say was better: Chang with 1 Slam or Rafter with 1 week as No.1 ? Answer this question and the OQ is also answered.
Rafter of course.
He has 2 slams and #1 ranking.
atennisfan is offline  
post #65 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 03:06 AM
Registered User
 
156mphserve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 19,412
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

The most important stat when refeing to GOAT is the most tard fans on MTF

2012 Chennai Champion
11-13 San Jose 3-Peat
Milos

Welcome Your Newest Top 10 Member

Raonic

Proud Canadian
11-13 San Jose 3-Peat
2012 Chennai Champion
156mphserve is offline  
post #66 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 05:35 AM
Registered User
 
MaxPower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Age: 32
Posts: 7,805
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

There aren't that many players in MEN's tennis that has been #1 without winning at least 1 slam.

Many more that has won slams or been in slam finals without ever being close to #1 aren't there?


#1 is actually a better "quality" guarantee. Harder to fluke #1 as the system works, than to fluke slams like the infamous one slam wonders who sometimes haven't even been in the top3 even


So I guess even in GOAT debate #1 should be seen as more difficult. Got a harder time seeing someone passing Federers weeks at nr1 than passing federers 17 slams.

slams you only need to be awesome for 4 tournaments a year. To hold #1 you need to be awesome all season. So in theory #1 has more prestige to it
MaxPower is offline  
post #67 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 06:49 AM
Banned!
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,577
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

Definitely slams.
SerialKillerToBe is offline  
post #68 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 06:54 AM
Rankings Master
 
Slasher1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Age: 30
Posts: 12,877
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by atennisfan View Post
Rafter of course.
He has 2 slams and #1 ranking.
I changed that question in a later post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slasher1985 View Post
EDIT: Yeah, you're right. Rafter has 2 GS. So, the way you said is the better questions.

Everyone: Chang vs. Rios. Which one was better ?
So, it's Chang vs Rios now
Slasher1985 is offline  
post #69 of 69 (permalink) Old 10-07-2012, 09:05 AM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 43
Posts: 56,903
                     
Re: More important for one's GOAT resume: Slams or Time Spent at #1?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPower View Post
There aren't that many players in MEN's tennis that has been #1 without winning at least 1 slam.

Many more that has won slams or been in slam finals without ever being close to #1 aren't there?


#1 is actually a better "quality" guarantee. Harder to fluke #1 as the system works, than to fluke slams like the infamous one slam wonders who sometimes haven't even been in the top3 even


So I guess even in GOAT debate #1 should be seen as more difficult. Got a harder time seeing someone passing Federers weeks at nr1 than passing federers 17 slams.

slams you only need to be awesome for 4 tournaments a year. To hold #1 you need to be awesome all season. So in theory #1 has more prestige to it
The only #1 who didn't win a slam since the dawn of computer rankings in 1973 is Rios.

You think Federer's 299 and counting weeks are a better record than 17 slams? I don't. I think someone else will reach 299 weeks as #1 before someone else wins 17 slams (regardless of any later Fed improvements). After all, Sampras and Lendl are not that far back - ca. 4,5% for Sampras and 10% for Lendl. The difference %-wise to #2 an #3 in slam wins are much greater - 17,5% to Sampras and 35% to Borg/Laver/Nadal. Nadal is exceptional in having so many slams for so "few" weeks as #1 (Borg has similar numbers, but as we know he was cheated by the system and should have had more). I don't think the next double-digit slam winner will have been stuck at #2 for four years.
Litotes is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome