I decided to make a separate thread about this, trying to put an objective view on GOAT debates, but I don't want this to be turned into yet another GOAT debate thread!
So, please, talk criteria here, not particular players!
Let's try to give weight coefficients for each criteria. I'll introduce some of them:
- number of GS titles;
- number of Masters titles;
- number of WTF titles;
- number of DC titles;
- Olympics medals;
- overall number of titles;
- number of YE #1;
- weeks at #1;
- overall W/L ratio;
- W/L ratio to closest competitors;
- Top 10 W/L ratio;
and you are free to add other criteria, and propose your own weight coefficients.
Again, please, no GOAT candidates here, or at least not until we reach some level of agreement on the weighting of criteria!
It's not only about winning and numbers. How about winning slams on all surfaces? How about winning several different slams (up to the career grandslam)? How about a combo of longevity but also having a few seasons with multiple slams? How about who you beat to win slams or the era you play in? You can't just focuse on numbers, you have to analyze them.
Sorry, simply cannot accept number of slams as the only measure!
Winning slams on all surfaces, and other criteria you mention, can be a bonus factor added to the number of slams.
My idea is to split weight between various criteria, not single out just one.
Simplified example would be, say, out of 100% assign 40% to total number of slams, 20% to number of masters titles 30% to weeks at #1 and 10% to H2H between main rivals.
Greatness is a dish that consist of strong/weak era index, number of Grand Slam titles, H2H record against the main rivals at Grand Slams, Career (Golden) Slam, Weeks at No. 1, number of WTF titles, number of Masters titles. GOAT is who has the tastiest one.
Great Players - Winning 6-9 slams on at least 2 different surfaces
Longevity
YE at #1
Weeks at #1
WTF-WCT titles, at least once
Good winning % on all surfaces
All time Greats:
10 or more slams, including pro slams, on various surfaces.
Longevity, and the other above criteria
Number of Slam titles is most important. If two players have the same number of Slams won, then diversity counts (e.g. winning RG + USO is better than winning USO + USO).
When everything is qual and both players have won all 4 different Slams and the same number of Slams overall, then weeks at #1 is the deciding factor.
It is more than obvious that you can't argue with tards buddy. Can't even ask a question to a tard and get straight answer .... No matter how clear you elaborate the goal and rules ...
====
Here is my input:
Grand Slams - Number of titles multiplied by factor 10
WTF - Number of titles multiplied by factor 6 (Much lower significance than GS, but has to have high factor since it is only played once per year)
Olympic Gold - Gold medals multiplied by factor 20 (only once every 4 years)
Masters - Number of Titles multiplied by factor 1
Weeks as No.1 - Number of weeks multiplied by factor 0.2
Davis Cups - I wouldn't count it. After winning first title, players participate only to fulfill criteria for the Olympics. Also, the doubles match very often decides the ties. Nothing to do with greatness of a singles player
Grand Slams - Number of titles multiplied by factor 10
WTF - Number of titles multiplied by factor 5
Olympic Gold - Gold medals multiplied by factor 0.8
Masters - Number of Titles multiplied by factor 1
Weeks as No.1 - Number of weeks multiplied by factor 0.2
Davis Cups - Number of titles multiplied by factor 3
A more objective approach could be to take as factor the number of points at each title. Slams: 2000. WTF: 1200. Masters: 1000. Other criteria (#1 weeks, YE#1, OG, DC in that order), would serve only as tie-breakers.
-Number of slams
-Weeks at #1 (to a much lesser extent YE1)
-Diversity of slams (being able to "dominate" more than one surface)
-World Tour Finals/Masters Cup
I decided to make a separate thread about this, trying to put an objective view on GOAT debates, but I don't want this to be turned into yet another GOAT debate thread!
So, please, talk criteria here, not particular players!
Let's try to give weight coefficients for each criteria. I'll introduce some of them:
- number of GS titles; ----------------- 0%
- number of Masters titles; ----------- 0%
- number of WTF titles; --------------- 0%
- number of DC titles; ----------------- 0%
- Olympics medals; --------------------- 0%
- overall number of titles; --------------- 0%
- number of YE #1; ---------------------- 0%
- weeks at #1; ---------------------------- 0%
- overall W/L ratio; ----------------------- 0%
- W/L ratio to closest competitors; ------- 10%
- Top 10 W/L ratio; ------------------------- 5%
and you are free to add other criteria, and propose your own weight coefficients.
Again, please, no GOAT candidates here, or at least not until we reach some level of agreement on the weighting of criteria!
- Some measure of longevity standardized across generations ---------------- 5%
- GS titles ratio vs your generation(needs to be defined) ------------ 40%
- Ratio of # of weeks at number 1 vs your generation --------------- 40%
1) You must be an attacking player. not a pusher or grinder. That's why Nadal will never be a great player.
He is just a definition of anti-tennis, like Chelsea-12 or Greece-04 in football - nobody calls those teams "great"
I think we can distinguish two rough categories of criteria - achievements (or direct achievements) which would obviously include titles won, and other factors (or indirect achievements) which would include weeks at #1, YE #1, H2H, Top 10 W/L ratio...
So, we could first try to quantify the relationship between these 2 categories.
I'd say direct achievements 70% and indirect achievements 30%.
Then we can discuss weighting in each of the categories.
# Slams = 50%
# weeks at no.1 = 20%
# year end at no. 1 = 10%
# WTF titles = 5%
# master titles = 5%
Others (longevity etc) =10%
Davis Cup and Olympics should not count.
Davis Cup puts at disadvantage great player from countries with no depth. Olympics has no history and only played once every four years, therefore put at advantage players who got sick/injured etc during that particular week every four years.
# Slams = 50%
# weeks at no.1 = 20%
# year end at no. 1 = 10%
# WTF titles = 5%
# master titles = 5%
Others (longevity etc) =10%
Davis Cup and Olympics should not count.
Davis Cup puts at disadvantage great player from countries with no depth. Olympics has no history and only played once every four years, therefore put at advantage players who got sick/injured etc during that particular week every four years.
Makes sense, but then again it is an achievement. I certainly wouldn't give them more count than one single tournament title. It also makes sense to use those as a tie-breaker, if everything else is equal.
Great players like Borg, Laver, Connors etc never had a chance to play at Olympics, so it should not count because then those players will be at disadvantage already.
If I had to give some points it would be like this:
1 grand slam = 1 pts
1 year end championship = 0.5 pts
1 masters 1000 = 0.2 pts
30 weeks at No1 = 1 pts
In this system best GS counts correspond to 14-17 points while longest No1 reigns correspond to 9-10 points and it seems a fair proportion (both peak level and consistency rewarded). Masters1000 and Year End Championship were almost from the beginning of the Open Era so this system is ok for most Open Era players. It's hard with the Olympics as it appeared only in 1988 and many greats had no chance of participation or winning. So I decided to omit Olympics as well as WCT finals (not played since 1989). Here's my provisional ranking of most accomplished Open Era players:
Ratio of 5/1 between the GS and Masters is way too much, you really think that it is 5 times harder to win GS then Masters tournament?! OK, not all Masters are equal, but since (most of) those are the mandatory tournaments, the competition is practically equal to GS. So the difference is about the draw size and match format.
Yearly competition should be included also. You can win 3 slams and 4 masters in a year but with such weak competition it's worse than 1 slams and 2 masters.
If you could only find the way to quantify competition... you could have a valid argument.
Competition doesn't change on a yearly basis, same players are on the tour for years, some even decades.
Now, if some of them cannot withstand the pressure, you can not put the blame on those who can. Or maybe you can, they are the ones who apply the pressure!
Wimbledon 10 points
Cincinatti 5 points
Hamburg 5 points
U.S open 5 points.
Wtf 5 points
Other slams 3 points
Other masters 0.5 points
Olympics 0.1 points
I'm not biased at all.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!