Revised Top 10 For Men All Time

[El Dude]

Sorry Federberg, but you are conflating greatest and best - at least as far as I'm using the words. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this, but I just see you circling back towards "best" as your view on what greatness is. Again, that's fine if you define greatest that way, but then we're at an impasse as our definitions of greatness are different.

Further, you're the one that keeps comparing them - I'm not comparing the 60s to now - that's the "best" game. I'm just saying that greatness in the 60s is still greatness, even if the level of play isn't as good.

Also, the closed system thing about Cameroon is a clever idea but ultimately doesn't apply in this case, because the best players in the 60s on the pro and amateur tours were the best players in the world at the time, even if "the world" was smaller, so too speak. But Cameroon today is a tiny fraction of the world - truly a closed system within a larger world. But tennis in the 60s wasn't closed as much as it was less expansive. I mean, who was playing tennis outside of the amateur and pro tours in the 60s?

I think a more apt analogy would be comparing the strongest man alive today with 7+ billion people vs. the strongest man alive when there were only 2 billion. You are saying because there are 7 billion people now, the strongest man alive is inherently greater. I am saying that he is probably better, but greatness has to do with how good you are relative to the time you play in. If the strongest man alive among 2 billion was twice as strong as anyone else, while the strongest alive now is only 5% stronger than anyone else, I think you can make a valid argument that the 2 billion guy was "greater" (now of course the main limitation to this argument is that physical strength can be measured more easily than tennis ability, but hopefully the point is made).

How about this: What do you mean by "greatness" in the context of GOAT? How would you specifically define it? What is your criteria? In other words, what is your list of GOATs and why do you rank them in the order that you do? I'm willing to play on your playing field for awhile...actually, it might be interesting to look at if there is any disagreement about who we choose using your definitions of what greatness means.

 

[Federberg]

Sorry Federberg, but you are conflating greatest and best - at least as far as I'm using the words. We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this, but I just see you circling back towards "best" as your view on what greatness is. Again, that's fine if you define greatest that way, but then we're at an impasse as our definitions of greatness are different.

I think it's very clear that I'm not, but if you choose to see it that way to defend your point of view...fine

 

[Federberg]

Further, you're the one that keeps comparing them - I'm not comparing the 60s to now - that's the "best" game. I'm just saying that greatness in the 60s is still greatness, even if the level of play isn't as good.

Yes you are comparing the 60s to now. How else can you explain your fantasy slam numbers? How do you explain your assertion (which I agree with) that greatness is a relative thing? Why would you say that if you weren't trying to link the 60s with now? Are you trying to moonwalk your way back from this now?

 

[Federberg]

Also, the closed system thing about Cameroon is a clever idea but ultimately doesn't apply in this case, because the best players in the 60s on the pro and amateur tours were the best players in the world at the time, even if "the world" was smaller, so too speak. But Cameroon today is a tiny fraction of the world - truly a closed system within a larger world. But tennis in the 60s wasn't closed as much as it was less expansive. I mean, who was playing tennis outside of the amateur and pro tours in the 60s?

For a start.. .let's be clear. What you call a pro tour was more equivalent to a circus (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) than what the professional tour is now. Further the Cameroon example is apropos. You're trying to be clever hear and assign a reality that I never did. Yes Cameroon is a tiny fraction of the world (so good to get geography lessons! But that's not the point. We're talking closed systems and performance therein. The point is that someone can do extremely well in a small world. That doesn't in anyway mean that their "greatness" has any comparability to what's going on in the wider world. It saddens me that you don't see that. The 50s and 60s were an extremely small world, and there is really no utility in trying compare the sport then to now

 

[Federberg]

I think a more apt analogy would be comparing the strongest man alive today with 7+ billion people vs. the strongest man alive when there were only 2 billion. You are saying because there are 7 billion people now, the strongest man alive is inherently greater. I am saying that he is probably better, but greatness has to do with how good you are relative to the time you play in. If the strongest man alive among 2 billion was twice as strong as anyone else, while the strongest alive now is only 5% stronger than anyone else, I think you can make a valid argument that the 2 billion guy was "greater" (now of course the main limitation to this argument is that physical strength can be measured more easily than tennis ability, but hopefully the point is made).

Please don't try to take control of the narrative with me I am not saying this at all. What we had in the 50s and 60s was a world where tennis was not global, not even a significant sport in most of the countries where it was played. The very best athletes did not think to take it up. That is vastly different to what we have today. Yes there are sports that are far more lucrative than tennis even now, but the rewards are now enough to entice people from demographics that simply wouldn't have known about tennis back in the day. That's a hugely different thing. Now let's take your billions example. If the strongest man contest was well known thoughout the population whether 2bn or 7bn, then we have the critical mass we need. There would be no need to dismiss the achievements of the 2billion population. I should think that's fairly obvious. That is not what we are talking about in tennis. I think that's fairly obvious. It is not an appropriate example

 

[Federberg]

How about this: What do you mean by "greatness" in the context of GOAT? How would you specifically define it? What is your criteria? In other words, what is your list of GOATs and why do you rank them in the order that you do? I'm willing to play on your playing field for awhile...actually, it might be interesting to look at if there is any disagreement about who we choose using your definitions of what greatness means.

I simply do not have much respect for the concept of GOAT. Cross-era comparisons delve into the realm of Harry Potter in my view. I think that's well known. I'm happy to talk about which players I consider to be "great", but I have extreme difficulties with the use of superlatives. For a start, I would assign Borg a much higher level of "greatness" than most because I don't think we would be watching the tennis we're seeing now if he hadn't made tennis a truly global sport. The man was a rock star, and even though I never really supported him (I was a Mac guy), I think he is a true giant of this sport because without him we wouldn't have all these wonderful discussions

The things I respect are titles won, length of time as number 1. Number of slams won (although I assign a slightly lower weighting to that than most because it's unfair to penalise players of the past that weren't so slam centric as now). I'm happy to debate which players through time top the lists as a fun exercise based on those metrics, because those are constants through time. My thing though is that I wouldn't even bother going further back than the mid to late 70s. Anything further back and we're in rugby union vs rugby league territory again..

 

[El Dude]

OK, one more - then I really have to try to sleep!

First of all, the 50s and 60s were a smaller world but they were not a closed system, which is why the Cameroon analogy doesn't work and the 7b/2b one is much closer to the truth of how things are. If it makes you happier, we can say 7b and 100 million...it doesn't matter. The point is, both are "the world," and the best player among 100 million is still the best player in the world, whereas the best player in Cameroon is almost certainly not the best player in the world.

We're clearly at an impasse unless we can come to an agreement about what "greatness" means, how we define GOAT. Let's start there, see where we get to. You don't like my definition, fine, but how about you offer one up yourself? I'll hang up and wait for your answer off the air

EDIT: I see you responded to that just before I posted this. You don't leave much room for discussion - it pretty much negates GOAT conversation, or at least narrows it considerably. Actually, in the way you define it, it is pretty clear - we just look up the corresponding stats and resumes, and you've got your list (and Roger's on top). But what's the fun of that? I kind of prefer the approach that everyone comes up with their own definition of what "GOAT" means, and then offers a list.

One thing about going back in time, is where do you draw the line? It isn't like there's a clear before and after. It is a spectrum. So if you say mid-to-late 70s, why not early 70s? And then why not late 60s? The Open Era is probably the most natural cut-off, but even then you have the same players who were just playing on the amateur and pro tours (I personally find the early years of the Open Era to be quite fascinating). So again, it is a spectrum.

OK, bed time.

 

[Federberg]

^Lol! that's like saying a millionaires club is not a closed system. It is if you aren't a millionaire! I'm sorry mate, but in the 50s and 60s it was more than a smaller world, it was a world that few knew about. It was for all intents and purposes a closed system. What we have in the 50s and 60s is a collection of players who were good I'll grant you, but it's far harder to get to "they were the best players in the world". They were the best players of a sub-set of privileged people who took up tennis as a passion is a more accurate description. It's still hard to get there now by the way, but at least we know that the opportunity to play this sport is global now. This is an entirely different world that goes beyond population size. The funny thing is I think you know this, but you want to hold on to your data. I get that

I'm happy to have a debate about when modern tennis as we know it now started. Heck, I'm happy to have these debates about player ratings through time. But when we start using fantasy numbers where does it end? I have a far easier time comparing the greatness of Serena to the greatness of Roger (I would pick Roger by the way, not just because I'm not as slam centric as most. But I would have him behind Navratilova as her numbers are simply too overwhelming). These debates are enjoyable, as long as we don't try to cloak points of view with phoney science. If we're talking about opinions, and who we like then great, let's go for it!

 

[DarthFed]

I don't know why you're counting being injured and off the tour as a fault against him, which, btw, is the reason he failed to defend '08 Wimbledon and '14 Canada, Cincy and USO, off the top of my head. He's won IW and Canada multiple times. You and a few others like to chant this about failing to defend a title off of clay, but I think it's a straw man device. Doesn't mean anything. And I'm not sure what you find so "woeful" about his several tenures as #1. He's taken it twice from Roger and 1 x from Novak. I appreciate your kind defense of Murray, but if you want to look at a miserable time at #1, I'd offer you his. And I have defended him as having injury and illness plaguing him almost the whole time. You may not feel like you're "trolling just to be negative," but I would ask you to examine your prejudices, then.

I wouldn't brush off the fact that he's never defended anything off clay before. It shows that he isn't too consistent aside from dirt and make his wins on grass and hards look opportunistic. As a Rafa hater I've always said that's what bothers me the most, on average that guy doesn't have the game that should've won 2 Wimbledon's and 2 USO's but he did well and snatched them often by playing over his head.

And most Rafa fans acknowledge that he does much better as the hunter than the hunted. He has mostly struggled as the #1 player aside from 2010 when he got to #1 after RG and then still dominated the rest of the year.

 

[El Dude]

^Lol! that's like saying a millionaires club is not a closed system. It is if you aren't a millionaire! I'm sorry mate, but in the 50s and 60s it was more than a smaller world, it was a world that few knew about. It was for all intents and purposes a closed system. What we have in the 50s and 60s is a collection of players who were good I'll grant you, but it's far harder to get to "they were the best players in the world". They were the best players of a sub-set of privileged people who took up tennis as a passion is a more accurate description. It's still hard to get there now by the way, but at least we know that the opportunity to play this sport is global now. This is an entirely different world that goes beyond population size. The funny thing is I think you know this, but you want to hold on to your data. I get that

Federberg, I'm deliberately ignoring your little jabs because I don't want to play that game, but if you feel like you need to bolster your argument by making up stories, go for it. Regardless, I don't care about "my data" - and I'm not even sure which data you're talking about. I have no horse in the race.

Anyhow, I hear and agree with what you're saying about the 50s and 60s, except you're missing a crucial point: they were still the best in the world, regardless of how closed or small the world was. It wasn't like, for instance, 1930s major league baseball when there was an entire other league of players, the Negro Leagues, that the major league players weren't playing. Your Cameroon analogy just heightens this misunderstanding, because unlike your hypothetical "Camerooni great," Laver played all the great players he could possibly play.

Further, tennis today is still a rich person's sport. The players who reach a high level who don't have significant wealth are rare exceptions (e.g. Tiafoe), so in that regard tennis isn't all different than it was 50 years - it is just that the scale is different.

I'm happy to have a debate about when modern tennis as we know it now started. Heck, I'm happy to have these debates about player ratings through time. But when we start using fantasy numbers where does it end? I have a far easier time comparing the greatness of Serena to the greatness of Roger (I would pick Roger by the way, not just because I'm not as slam centric as most. But I would have him behind Navratilova as her numbers are simply too overwhelming). These debates are enjoyable, as long as we don't try to cloak points of view with phoney science. If we're talking about opinions, and who we like then great, let's go for it!

What fantasy numbers are you talking about? Phoney science? I'm honestly confused.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, I'm deliberately ignoring your little jabs because I don't want to play that game, but if you feel like you need to bolster your argument by making up stories, go for it. Regardless, I don't care about "my data" - and I'm not even sure which data you're talking about. I have no horse in the race.

Anyhow, I hear and agree with what you're saying about the 50s and 60s, except you're missing a crucial point: they were still the best in the world, regardless of how closed or small the world was. It wasn't like, for instance, 1930s major league baseball when there was an entire other league of players, the Negro Leagues, that the major league players weren't playing. Your Cameroon analogy just heightens this misunderstanding, because unlike your hypothetical "Camerooni great," Laver played all the great players he could possibly play.

Further, tennis today is still a rich person's sport. The players who reach a high level who don't have significant wealth are rare exceptions (e.g. Tiafoe), so in that regard tennis isn't all different than it was 50 years - it is just that the scale is different.



What fantasy numbers are you talking about? Phoney science? I'm honestly confused.

Sigh.. if I'm offering little jabs then I apologise. I can be rather robust sometimes I'll admit. But I'm honestly at a loss to discern where the jab was in the paragraph :whistle:

You might want to think of them as the best in the world. I guess technically they were, but I repeat... "They were the best players of a sub-set of privileged people who took up tennis as a passion is a more accurate description". It amounts to the same thing of course, but this is a more accurate description that the more grand "best in the world" stuff imho.

Re: your point about..."Laver played all the great players he could possibly play". It really doesn't matter if it was a perishingly small group of players. I'm sorry that doesn't confer equivalence with the modern era as a consequence. It just doesn't. And yet again you're trying to use the absurdity of my Cameroonian example as a tool to bolster your point, when very clearly I was using an extreme to illustrate the weakness of your cross-era comparison. You can keep at it if you want, but I'm pretty sure it's very clear what I was getting at.

Regarding your data/ phoney science... stuff like this...

1. 301 Bill Tilden
2. 202 Rod Laver
3. 185 Pancho Gonzales
3t. 185 Ken Rosewall
5. 165 Roger Federer
6. 164 Tony Wilding
7. 150 Josiah Ritchie
8. 137 Pete Sampras
9t. 131 Laurence Doherty
9t. 131 Jimmy Connors
11. 128 Rafael Nadal
12t. 126 Ivan Lendl
12t. 126 Novak Djokovic
14. 117 John McEnroe
15. 116 Don Budge
16. 111 Pancho Segura
17t. 101 Bobby Riggs
17t. 101 Bjorn Borg
19. 100 Harold Mahony
20. 97 Harry Barlow
21. 94 Andre Agassi

EDIT: Forgot to tackle one more comment you made... tennis is so far from the rich man's sport it once was. Yes it's not soccer in terms of the demographics that turn professional. But you have a lot of Eastern Europeans in the game now who didn't exactly have privileged backgrounds. There's some way to go, but no where near like it used to be. No where near...

Anyway, I'm clearly upsetting you, so I'll stop now. My point has been made,whether you accept it or now :mail:

 

[El Dude]

LOL, you love to project. I'm not upset, I just don't want to play tit for tat. We've both made points and we disagree, although I think we also disagree on what we disagree about! For instance, you keep insisting I'm trying to rigidly compare eras, but this just feeds back into your greatest/best conflation. This is just a strawman argument, Federberg, because I am not "conferring equivalence with the modern era." Again, that's not what I mean by greatest. I'm not sure why you're not getting that, but instead circling back and arguing a strawman.

By the way, that list above is based upon TennisBase.com, so it isn't really "my data." They're based upon a complex formula they use to give yearly rankings going back to 1877, and then I created a simple formula to put them all together in a numerical value. But it seems you take issue with statistics in general, especially when they contradict your opinions! But note that I was very clear that the list above was not my ranking of GOATs...it was just offered to give one perspective on it. Most everyone considers themselves an expert, and I think it is important to question that, otherwise we're just playing an ego game. I personally don't care about being "right" - partially because I don't have a strong opinion about this. But I do care about including as much information and considering as many perspectives as possible.

 

[Federberg]

LOL, you love to project. I'm not upset, I just don't want to play tit for tat. We've both made points and we disagree, although I think we also disagree on what we disagree about! For instance, you keep insisting I'm trying to rigidly compare eras, but this just feeds back into your greatest/best conflation. This is just a strawman argument, Federberg, because I am not "conferring equivalence with the modern era." Again, that's not what I mean by greatest. I'm not sure why you're not getting that, but instead circling back and arguing a strawman.

By the way, that list above is based upon TennisBase.com, so it isn't really "my data." They're based upon a complex formula they use to give yearly rankings going back to 1877, and then I created a simple formula to put them all together in a numerical value. But it seems you take issue with statistics in general, especially when they contradict your opinions! But note that I was very clear that the list above was not my ranking of GOATs...it was just offered to give one perspective on it. Most everyone considers themselves an expert, and I think it is important to question that, otherwise we're just playing an ego game. I personally don't care about being "right" - partially because I don't have a strong opinion about this. But I do care about including as much information and considering as many perspectives as possible.

My greatest/ best conflation Mate... you do compare eras. Are you seriously denying that you do? You also posted that data. Why would you do that if you weren't using it to support your view point. Nothing wrong with that, but please own it. I'm not sure how you think you can get away with listing modern players with historical ones and yet claim you're not doing that (heck! I've been known to do that myself, I probably rate some of the older greats a bit lower than others, but that's my take). I do understand your view about greatness. And if you said you simply disagree with my view that the modern era and the 50s and 60s were a different sport, I would have no issue, but you don't quite do that. For the record I don't consider myself an expert, I'm very opinionated though As for hating statistics? Nope! I have a genuine respect for statistics. I use it every day in my job. I've worked with quants most of my career.. and in finance we talk about "crap in crap out". You can have the prettiest data set possible, but if it doesn't fit the situation, it's not going to tell you anything of use (I'm not saying that about all your data, some of it is excellent just not this cross-era stuff!). Anyway... I'm outta here for now

 

[El Dude]

I compare eras, but not in the way you are saying - that is, trying to "confer equivalence." I am not saying pro or amateur Slams are equivalent to Open Era Slams in terms of the pool of players, depth, training, etc. I am saying they are still good indicators as to who was best in the world during that time.

But more so, I am saying that when we consider greatest players of all time and try to come up with rankings, I prefer to take a more relativistic approach. Otherwise we might as well only populate our lists with players of the last 20-30 years, as the game seems to evolve over time -- or at least weigh it heavily towards the present. And even though peak Andy Murray would probably beat peak Rod Laver in a Secret Wars scenario (with you and I as co-Beyonders ), I am not comfortable ranking Andy above Rod in a list of GOATs, because relative to their respective eras, Laver was a far greater player.

I mean otherwise you could make an argument that Murray should be ranked higher than John McEnroe, because imagine Johnny Mac in today's game...How good would his style work against Rafa and Novak? (Of course he probably would adapt, but again this points to the centrality of context in the discussion). But Andy never came close to dominating like Mac did in the first half of the 80s, and thus to me is not as great.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Dude, I am with you on measuring greatness relative to their respective eras. However, you are not being consistent here. Go to the GOATESS thread. I made several posts there claiming how great HWM was. She was truly the GOATESS by any measure (ignoring the fact that the game might look totally different at that time compared to modern times). The woman simply (almost) never lost. For about six years she did not even lose a set. In her whole career she has lost in grandslams only three times or so. Further, she did not play in the very old era (when the winner of a GS had to just play one match the next year to defend the title). Also, she did not accumulate titles at AO where many players did not bother to go (this is what MC did). However, you don't seem to agree that GOATESS is HWM. Actually, if you look at the stats and the way she dominated when she played, it is not even close to any other domination women's tennis had seen.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for the response, Game. A couple things. Mainly I think there is a balance. While I believe Federberg is a bit too extreme with "recency bias" and doesn't honor older greats enough, I also agree with the general view--which he seems to hold--that tennis evolves, so that the best players now are probably the best players ever.

On the other hand, Moody is, to me, the female equivalent of Bill Tilden. As with Tilden, I can agree that Moody is probably the most dominant player ever for the time she played in. But also like Tilden, I'm hesitant to call her the GOAT(ess) because of what Federberg is saying. So in the end, I want to balance the two, and I'm not sure how.

At the least, I do include Moody in the "herd of GOATesses" - along with Court, Evert, Navritilova, Graf, and Serena. To me those six are clearly above everyone else. We can quibble in what order they should be placed, but I don't think there's a good argument that they aren't the six greatest female tennis players of all time. With the men, the list is slightly less distinct and maybe a bit larger, but there are still about ten or a dozen players who are GOAT candidates, with everyone else in the next tier out. And even though I think there's a valid argument that an Andy Murray is now a better player than was, for example, a Bill Tilden, I don't think we can say that Andy is a greater player than Tilden, historically speaking.

 

[Fiero425]

Thanks for the response, Game. A couple things. Mainly I think there is a balance. While I believe Federberg is a bit too extreme with "recency bias" and doesn't honor older greats enough, I also agree with the general view--which he seems to hold--that tennis evolves, so that the best players now are probably the best players ever.

On the other hand, Moody is, to me, the female equivalent of Bill Tilden. As with Tilden, I can agree that Moody is probably the most dominant player ever for the time she played in. But also like Tilden, I'm hesitant to call her the GOAT(ess) because of what Federberg is saying. So in the end, I want to balance the two, and I'm not sure how.

At the least, I do include Moody in the "herd of GOATesses" - along with Court, Evert, Navritilova, Graf, and Serena. To me those six are clearly above everyone else. We can quibble in what order they should be placed, but I don't think there's a good argument that they aren't the six greatest female tennis players of all time. With the men, the list is slightly less distinct and maybe a bit larger, but there are still about ten or a dozen players who are GOAT candidates, with everyone else in the next tier out. And even though I think there's a valid argument that an Andy Murray is now a better player than was, for example, a Bill Tilden, I don't think we can say that Andy is a greater player than Tilden, historically speaking.

I can't tell you how many times I've had to revisit this topic, from Laver being the consummate and consensus GOAT with his 2 CYGS; 1 as an Am. in '62 & another as a pro in '69 to Federer's rebirth winning #18 & #19! Borg came along performing like no other in pro history taking 5 straight Wimbledons and 6 of 8 FO's and rationalizing began then to change who was thought of as "the best!" It was settled until Sampras came along breaking men's records at 12! We were so set on making history and proclaiming him the GOAT with 14 majors, we overlooked he hadn't even played a FO final! After this latest crop of greats, Fedalovic have pushed Pete below Laver and Borg even though he has more majors! At least Borg played in 4 USO finals; the one slam he was never able to snag! I give more credit to Borg due to such a short window of opportunity and accomplishing so much! Roger's the man, even though 2 players have owned him for the most part over the years in major events! He has turned the clock back and taken over rivalry with Nadal, but is still woefully behind in the H2H! OTTH, this is how I remember it:

1970's - Laver led the way over Borg even though Emerson held a record 12 majors to Laver's 11!

1980's - Laver still owned it over Borg with Lendl coming up fast with a ton of accomplishments!

1990's - Laver still revered, but Sampras started coming on strong taking 7 Wimbledons & 5 USO's

2000's - Sampras owned it, but Federer has a stretch in the mid decade like no other, winning 3 of 4 majors 3 times! Federer becomes the definitive GOAT with Nadal closely behind!

2010's - Federer extends his lead over the rest of the field in the history of the game, with the only competition left is to see who's #2! Right now it's between 3 players, Nadal, Djokovic, & Sampras!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Thanks for the response, Game. A couple things. Mainly I think there is a balance. While I believe Federberg is a bit too extreme with "recency bias" and doesn't honor older greats enough, I also agree with the general view--which he seems to hold--that tennis evolves, so that the best players now are probably the best players ever.

On the other hand, Moody is, to me, the female equivalent of Bill Tilden. As with Tilden, I can agree that Moody is probably the most dominant player ever for the time she played in. But also like Tilden, I'm hesitant to call her the GOAT(ess) because of what Federberg is saying. So in the end, I want to balance the two, and I'm not sure how.

If you are having the distinction of GOAT and BOAT and you are assessing GOATness as to how well one dominated during their time, then there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that HWM is the GOATESS. You cannot use what Federberg is saying whenever you want and not use it whenever you don't want.

 

[Federberg]

If you are having the distinction of GOAT and BOAT and you are assessing GOATness as to how well one dominated during their time, then there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that HWM is the GOATESS. You cannot use what Federberg is saying whenever you want and not use it whenever you don't want.

I'm so glad you pointed that out mate. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it, and as for the claim that I have recency bias.... tosh! If I assert that it's a different sport now that's not recency bias at all. It's different! He loooves to try to label things to control the narrative!

Personally I would go with Navratilova as the greatest. Number of slams not just in singles, dominance, a partner in the greatest rivalry tennis has seen. I mean... think about it, had Evert not been there she would probably have 30 singles titles and we wouldn't even be debating this!

 

[Federberg]

I compare eras, but not in the way you are saying - that is, trying to "confer equivalence." I am not saying pro or amateur Slams are equivalent to Open Era Slams in terms of the pool of players, depth, training, etc. I am saying they are still good indicators as to who was best in the world during that time.

But more so, I am saying that when we consider greatest players of all time and try to come up with rankings, I prefer to take a more relativistic approach. Otherwise we might as well only populate our lists with players of the last 20-30 years, as the game seems to evolve over time -- or at least weigh it heavily towards the present. And even though peak Andy Murray would probably beat peak Rod Laver in a Secret Wars scenario (with you and I as co-Beyonders ), I am not comfortable ranking Andy above Rod in a list of GOATs, because relative to their respective eras, Laver was a far greater player.

I mean otherwise you could make an argument that Murray should be ranked higher than John McEnroe, because imagine Johnny Mac in today's game...How good would his style work against Rafa and Novak? (Of course he probably would adapt, but again this points to the centrality of context in the discussion). But Andy never came close to dominating like Mac did in the first half of the 80s, and thus to me is not as great.

Now you're just coming up with silly stuff mate. Who on earth would suggest Murray is greater than Rod or Mac? I have an issue with applied fantasy, when you start talking about Laver and the amateur vs pro circuit I have an issue. You can try to come up with whatever nonsense you want mate but those are your words not mine

It is perfectly consistent to say that you give far too much credit for Laver's greatness or Gonzalez for that matter, versus the greatness of a Sampras or a Nadal without coming with some comedy about Andy Murray being fit to be in the same sentence as Laver or Mac.

Yes you can try to get away with the I'm not comparing across eras I'm comparing within (even though we all know you often do) but if an era is so vastly superior to another that has to be factored in