The Goat Debate

[ponchi101]

I think Novak motivates himself a lot, regardless of who owns whichever record is near.

[ashkor87]

I do wonder, though, if djokovic and his peers get drawn into all this hype about numerical records...i suspect they are more motivated by specific match-ups..beating Sinner, Alcaraz..less motivated by playing Medvedev, Rublev..counting titles is something the media does, because their understanding of tennis is so shallow, they need all these stats to talk about something. I would be interested to ask someone like Djokovic or Murray.

[mick1303]

I do wonder, though, if djokovic and his peers get drawn into all this hype about numerical records...i suspect they are more motivated by specific match-ups..beating Sinner, Alcaraz..less motivated by playing Medvedev, Rublev..counting titles is something the media does, because their understanding of tennis is so shallow, they need all these stats to talk about something. I would be interested to ask someone like Djokovic or Murray.

It is not black-and-white situation. There is a share of one and the other. Djokovic many times cited that his main rival is Nadal and he is motivated by rivalry with him. Once it was in direct response to the question about competing with Alcaraz. On the other hand they do not exist in vacuum, therefore they read/listen what media says. And if media mentions these numbers, players inevitably pay attention to them. Even if naturally they do not care about numbers as main drivers.

[ashkor87]

In this context, let us also remember Martina has said, often, that counting major titles is not how you measure greatness. I believe it is the level of your play, the range and variety of good players you have defeated, consistently, that defines greatness in tennis .so I rate McEnroe and even Rios (who never won a major) very high and, of course, Gonzales

[ponchi101]

I agree with Martina, but you cannot measure your greatness just based on your natural talent. Yes, Rios was a player that was oozing with talent, but to me, he is such an underachiever that I cannot count him as a great.
Martina meant it also in another way. There are only 4 majors a year. Martina meant that greatness also meant showing up for the smaller tournaments, showing up for every match. Being able to see every match as a test, and delivering your best day in and day out.
That is the reason she is my GOAT.
Gonzales was a special case. He simply had to go pro. If he had been wealthy enough to remain amateur, we would have known how many slams he really would have won.

[FredX]

Not sure Gonzalez was a special case - at least not for his era in regards to going pro - as all the great players went pro as soon as they could get on the pro circuit in those days. So, yeah, slam titles were meaningless back then - I don't recall anyone paying much attention to Roy Emerson's grand slam total until Sampras actually looked like he could top it.

Still, I think they're a pretty good measure of greatness in today's game. Nowadays it's the slams where the greatest competition is, as every top player who can be there shows up, and where the greatest pressure is. To me handling those championship moments against the opponent across the net who has also won six matches in a row and not coming unglued...and doing it again and again...means more than what you do at minor tournaments where less is on the line (not that Martina was a slouch in that department either).

[ponchi101]

Not sure Gonzalez was a special case - at least not for his era in regards to going pro - as all the great players went pro as soon as they could get on the pro circuit in those days. So, yeah, slam titles were meaningless back then - I don't recall anyone paying much attention to Roy Emerson's grand slam total until Sampras actually looked like he could top it.

Still, I think they're a pretty good measure of greatness in today's game. Nowadays it's the slams where the greatest competition is, as every top player who can be there shows up, and where the greatest pressure is. To me handling those championship moments against the opponent across the net who has also won six matches in a row and not coming unglued...and doing it again and again...means more than what you do at minor tournaments where less is on the line (not that Martina was a slouch in that department either).

Remember that when Gonzales went pro, he played matches under "special" rules. For a while, he had to serve from a line one foot behind the baseline. Then, when that was not enough, he was forced to let the ball bounce at least once when his opponent was returning.
And sure, Martina also played week in and week out because the prize money at Slams was not what it is today. But she showed up at the Wala Wala Open and played with the same intensity as when she played at Wimbledon. I don't think players today do that unless it is like Iga playing in Poland, or Schwartzman playing in Buenos Aires. I think a lot of them show up, make the quarters, and cash that juicy $125K and say "hey, that was a good week".
And. When Borg was at 11 Slams, there was considerable talk about whether he would catch Emerson. It died fast because he retired so soon after that, but it was there.
(I don't know if there was the same talk when Laver reached 11, since he was clearly better than Emerson).

[ashkor87]

Yes, nobody thought Emmo was better than Laver just because he had more major titles. People had more sense those days . Navratilova did not play the AO for many years because it was just not worth the trouble . She would had 25, easy.

[mick1303]

Yes, I agree with all of this, yet because I was unable to determine exact moment when slams became what they are today, I retrospectively assigned them the same value as they have today in the weighted ranking. So for early years - 60s-70s the weighted ranking is not adjusted for lower weight to the slams. Which is why my new project - "Opponents' Index" interests me more now ))

[ashkor87]

Yes, I agree with all of this, yet because I was unable to determine exact moment when slams became what they are today, I retrospectively assigned them the same value as they have today in the weighted ranking. So for early years - 60s-70s the weighted ranking is not adjusted for lower weight to the slams. Which is why my new project - "Opponents' Index" interests me more now ))

i do like your opponents index concept, because it addresses the question - so whom did you beat? what was the competition? instead of just counting wins.
I would say the obsession with major titles began when Sampras won 12, and everyone made a big deal about it, then accelerated when Federer passed Samras and 'proved' he was the best - of course, little did we know Nadal and Djokovic would pass him!

[ponchi101]

I wouldn't say the "obsession" with slams started with Sampras passing Emerson. Borg's record of 11 slams in only 25 appearances was already something legendary. Connors claim that he would follow Borg "to the end of the world" if Borg would be vying for a calendar slam was made in the 70's. Mac, after failing to win RG, stated "I guess I will always be looking up at my idol", meaning Laver, and that was clearly measured solely on slams.
Heck, Laver's 69 slam, and Court's 70 slam were highly celebrated.

[ashkor87]

Maybe a trigger was the AO moving to January..until then, it wasn't considered equal to the other majors so people didn't count majors as if it was the thing...so if we want a cutoff date, maybe that is it?

[ponchi101]

A bit before? Edberg's first Aussie was in 85, still at Kooyong. Evert and Navratilova were already going regularly. Wilander has his 83 and 84.
But yes, somewhere in the 80's.

[mick1303]

Maybe a trigger was the AO moving to January..until then, it wasn't considered equal to the other majors so people didn't count majors as if it was the thing...so if we want a cutoff date, maybe that is it?

The thing is, those other majors also weren't exactly equal to each other. Players were missing French Open for some other competitions (Team Tennis?). Laver after his CYGS in 1969 clearly stopped prioritizing slams and his 1970 season shows this. He was #3 in weighted ranking (which is heavily influenced by Slams performance), but still #1 in Opponents' Index. Therefore it is extremely hard to quantify the importance of each Slam back then.

[ashkor87]

Hmm..certainly gives credence to the Opponents index then..