tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:01:52
From: serve & volley
Subject: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
Sampras 78%
Nadal 75%
Federer 72%
Newcombe 70%
Borg 69%
Laver 65%
McEnroe 64%
Wilander 64%
Becker 60%
Edberg 55%
Agassi 53%
Connors 53%
Lendl 42%

Close to GOAT list !




 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 12:30:34
From:
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 2:51=A0pm, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you specified "if you were a kid" -- is my
> > hypothetical future self supposed to be naive, or a reasonably
> > sophisticated and knowledgeable fan? But to answer your question, no,
> > I would not find it ridiculous. There is nothing illogical, internally
> > contradictory, or especially troubling (to me) about a statement in
> > the form, "X was the greatest player ever, but he could not beat Y."
> > Anyone who becomes a tennis fan soon learns two important facts:
> > 1. All players lose matches.
> > 2. All players lose matches to lesser players.
>
> > The frequency with which a player loses to someone who can beat him is
> > largely a function of the number of times they meet. If X has a
> > matchup difficulty with Y, and X are Y are both good enough to advance
> > far in tournaments regularly, then X will lose to Y often. I don't
> > think this outcome has much to do with GOAT analysis, unless we depart
> > radically from the generally accepted standard of total career results
> > (however we choose to count them) and adopt a reductionist, "last man
> > standing" approach that allows the "who 'owned' whom" question to
> > trump everything else.
>
> > As I've said before, I understand why some people *feel* that Federer
> > doesn't have a strong claim to GOAT because Nadal has taken his
> > measure in recent slam finals. It just looks weak for any player, GOAT
> > candidate or not, to lose big matches repeatedly to the same opponent.
> > But how outcomes feel and how they look in this sense are not
> > important to me in thinking about GOAT claims. I prefer a system based
> > on neutral criteria that can be specified in advance and applied
> > evenhandedly to everyone, without ad hoc adjustments made to penalize
> > individual players for failing to live up to expectations.
>
> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The "if you were a kid" just meant, if you were growing up 50 years
> from now and viewing Fed's career in a historical context. I take your
> point about match up issues, but shouldn't the GOAT be able to
> overcome these? For instance Rosewall is generally considered superior
> to Laver on clay, but Laver managed to defeat him in an FO final. This
> among other things is why I consider Laver GOAT. Fed on the other hand
> has allowed Nadal not only to dominate him on clay but also to wrest
> control of his favourite surfaces from him. It's true that he may
> still squeak out the highest total of slam wins, but without a revenge
> win against Nadal on clay, I cannot consider him as great as Laver.
>
> Ideally the GOAT should have no weaknesses (i.e. surface, slam or
> match up agaisnt major rivals - who cares about losing the odd match
> in meaningless tournaments to journeymen). I believe Laver is the only
> male tennis player so far who fulfils these criteria. If we rate Fed
> higher than Sampras (I do not, yet) depends on how much
> weight we give to factors such as highest number of raw slam wins,
> plus most yrs and wks as #1, but many poor defeats against many
> players; and utter domination of the field bar one man yet marginally
> less impressive numbers in the slam/#1 categories.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



Laver is fine as goat, but of course 3/4 slams were played on grass
back then, and they did not have the same type of endless topspin
bumrooting going on the clay that came later. Rosewall never came over
a BH in his career.

I have Laver and Sampras as co-goats since their eras are so hard to
compare. If Fed were to knock off Sampras, Laver could stay on as co-
goat.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:18:50
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:51 pm, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure why you specified "if you were a kid" -- is my
>>> hypothetical future self supposed to be naive, or a reasonably
>>> sophisticated and knowledgeable fan? But to answer your question, no,
>>> I would not find it ridiculous. There is nothing illogical, internally
>>> contradictory, or especially troubling (to me) about a statement in
>>> the form, "X was the greatest player ever, but he could not beat Y."
>>> Anyone who becomes a tennis fan soon learns two important facts:
>>> 1. All players lose matches.
>>> 2. All players lose matches to lesser players.
>>> The frequency with which a player loses to someone who can beat him is
>>> largely a function of the number of times they meet. If X has a
>>> matchup difficulty with Y, and X are Y are both good enough to advance
>>> far in tournaments regularly, then X will lose to Y often. I don't
>>> think this outcome has much to do with GOAT analysis, unless we depart
>>> radically from the generally accepted standard of total career results
>>> (however we choose to count them) and adopt a reductionist, "last man
>>> standing" approach that allows the "who 'owned' whom" question to
>>> trump everything else.
>>> As I've said before, I understand why some people *feel* that Federer
>>> doesn't have a strong claim to GOAT because Nadal has taken his
>>> measure in recent slam finals. It just looks weak for any player, GOAT
>>> candidate or not, to lose big matches repeatedly to the same opponent.
>>> But how outcomes feel and how they look in this sense are not
>>> important to me in thinking about GOAT claims. I prefer a system based
>>> on neutral criteria that can be specified in advance and applied
>>> evenhandedly to everyone, without ad hoc adjustments made to penalize
>>> individual players for failing to live up to expectations.
>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> The "if you were a kid" just meant, if you were growing up 50 years
>> from now and viewing Fed's career in a historical context. I take your
>> point about match up issues, but shouldn't the GOAT be able to
>> overcome these? For instance Rosewall is generally considered superior
>> to Laver on clay, but Laver managed to defeat him in an FO final. This
>> among other things is why I consider Laver GOAT. Fed on the other hand
>> has allowed Nadal not only to dominate him on clay but also to wrest
>> control of his favourite surfaces from him. It's true that he may
>> still squeak out the highest total of slam wins, but without a revenge
>> win against Nadal on clay, I cannot consider him as great as Laver.
>>
>> Ideally the GOAT should have no weaknesses (i.e. surface, slam or
>> match up agaisnt major rivals - who cares about losing the odd match
>> in meaningless tournaments to journeymen). I believe Laver is the only
>> male tennis player so far who fulfils these criteria. If we rate Fed
>> higher than Sampras (I do not, yet) depends on how much
>> weight we give to factors such as highest number of raw slam wins,
>> plus most yrs and wks as #1, but many poor defeats against many
>> players; and utter domination of the field bar one man yet marginally
>> less impressive numbers in the slam/#1 categories.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> Laver is fine as goat, but of course 3/4 slams were played on grass
> back then, and they did not have the same type of endless topspin
> bumrooting going on the clay that came later. Rosewall never came over
> a BH in his career.
>
> I have Laver and Sampras as co-goats since their eras are so hard to
> compare. If Fed were to knock off Sampras, Laver could stay on as co-
> goat.


Agreed.



   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:32:10
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:18:50 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2:51 pm, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
>> <thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure why you specified "if you were a kid" -- is my
>>>> hypothetical future self supposed to be naive, or a reasonably
>>>> sophisticated and knowledgeable fan? But to answer your question, no,
>>>> I would not find it ridiculous. There is nothing illogical, internally
>>>> contradictory, or especially troubling (to me) about a statement in
>>>> the form, "X was the greatest player ever, but he could not beat Y."
>>>> Anyone who becomes a tennis fan soon learns two important facts:
>>>> 1. All players lose matches.
>>>> 2. All players lose matches to lesser players.
>>>> The frequency with which a player loses to someone who can beat him is
>>>> largely a function of the number of times they meet. If X has a
>>>> matchup difficulty with Y, and X are Y are both good enough to advance
>>>> far in tournaments regularly, then X will lose to Y often. I don't
>>>> think this outcome has much to do with GOAT analysis, unless we depart
>>>> radically from the generally accepted standard of total career results
>>>> (however we choose to count them) and adopt a reductionist, "last man
>>>> standing" approach that allows the "who 'owned' whom" question to
>>>> trump everything else.
>>>> As I've said before, I understand why some people *feel* that Federer
>>>> doesn't have a strong claim to GOAT because Nadal has taken his
>>>> measure in recent slam finals. It just looks weak for any player, GOAT
>>>> candidate or not, to lose big matches repeatedly to the same opponent.
>>>> But how outcomes feel and how they look in this sense are not
>>>> important to me in thinking about GOAT claims. I prefer a system based
>>>> on neutral criteria that can be specified in advance and applied
>>>> evenhandedly to everyone, without ad hoc adjustments made to penalize
>>>> individual players for failing to live up to expectations.
>>>> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> The "if you were a kid" just meant, if you were growing up 50 years
>>> from now and viewing Fed's career in a historical context. I take your
>>> point about match up issues, but shouldn't the GOAT be able to
>>> overcome these? For instance Rosewall is generally considered superior
>>> to Laver on clay, but Laver managed to defeat him in an FO final. This
>>> among other things is why I consider Laver GOAT. Fed on the other hand
>>> has allowed Nadal not only to dominate him on clay but also to wrest
>>> control of his favourite surfaces from him. It's true that he may
>>> still squeak out the highest total of slam wins, but without a revenge
>>> win against Nadal on clay, I cannot consider him as great as Laver.
>>>
>>> Ideally the GOAT should have no weaknesses (i.e. surface, slam or
>>> match up agaisnt major rivals - who cares about losing the odd match
>>> in meaningless tournaments to journeymen). I believe Laver is the only
>>> male tennis player so far who fulfils these criteria. If we rate Fed
>>> higher than Sampras (I do not, yet) depends on how much
>>> weight we give to factors such as highest number of raw slam wins,
>>> plus most yrs and wks as #1, but many poor defeats against many
>>> players; and utter domination of the field bar one man yet marginally
>>> less impressive numbers in the slam/#1 categories.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>>
>> Laver is fine as goat, but of course 3/4 slams were played on grass
>> back then, and they did not have the same type of endless topspin
>> bumrooting going on the clay that came later. Rosewall never came over
>> a BH in his career.
>>
>> I have Laver and Sampras as co-goats since their eras are so hard to
>> compare. If Fed were to knock off Sampras, Laver could stay on as co-
>> goat.
>
>
>Agreed.


Federer did knock off Sampras at the World Championships !

Federer 1 Sampras 0


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 12:23:41
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
No one,
> including Laver, has had the greatest career conceivable. (It may not
> be his fault that he played many years in a divided-circuit era, but
> everyone is limited by historical circumstance in one way or another.)
> If that leads one to conclude that there is no true GOAT, fine. That's
> a perfectly defensible position. But if one is inclined to measure
> extant careers against each other rather than against an ideal, then
> some of the more fastidious GOAT objections can be dismissed.

Yes, it may be possible to conclude there is not and cannot ever be a
fully provable GOAT.

If however we measure extant careers against each other, as you
suggest, we can only conclude that Laver has the fewest holes and thus
must be considered GOAT. Fed has the Nadal issue, Sampras had clay.
Laver has no comparable holes in his resume.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 20:17:59
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
Silence, Fedfucker! wrote:
> No one,
>> including Laver, has had the greatest career conceivable. (It may not
>> be his fault that he played many years in a divided-circuit era, but
>> everyone is limited by historical circumstance in one way or another.)
>> If that leads one to conclude that there is no true GOAT, fine. That's
>> a perfectly defensible position. But if one is inclined to measure
>> extant careers against each other rather than against an ideal, then
>> some of the more fastidious GOAT objections can be dismissed.
>
> Yes, it may be possible to conclude there is not and cannot ever be a
> fully provable GOAT.
>
> If however we measure extant careers against each other, as you
> suggest, we can only conclude that Laver has the fewest holes and thus
> must be considered GOAT.


Only won 5 open era slams, rest were against amateurs. That looks to be
a hole of sorts.


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 01:52:35
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:23:41 -0800 (PST), "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisgoat@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:

> No one,
>> including Laver, has had the greatest career conceivable. (It may not
>> be his fault that he played many years in a divided-circuit era, but
>> everyone is limited by historical circumstance in one way or another.)
>> If that leads one to conclude that there is no true GOAT, fine. That's
>> a perfectly defensible position. But if one is inclined to measure
>> extant careers against each other rather than against an ideal, then
>> some of the more fastidious GOAT objections can be dismissed.
>
>Yes, it may be possible to conclude there is not and cannot ever be a
>fully provable GOAT.
>
>If however we measure extant careers against each other, as you
>suggest, we can only conclude that Laver has the fewest holes and thus
>must be considered GOAT. Fed has the Nadal issue, Sampras had clay.
>Laver has no comparable holes in his resume.


I don't think the Fed/Nadal issue (if there is one in fact) is
relevant at all . If you start going into who lost to who then it
opens a pandoras box.

Best to keep it to achievement items only and avoid matchup issues
etc.

You know whisper has always said that LOSSES DON'T MATTER !

Now, all of a sudden he is trying to say LOSSES DO MATTER IF ...

That's bullshit cop out Sampras fan fucking hominy grits and black
eyed peas baloney.

And, if we start including losses in the discussion well BORG wins
hands down and Sampras loses big time so whisper better be careful
which hole he crawls into.

That said, surface versitility *is* fair game and Sampras was so lame
on clay that it can't be ignored. Given a tie at 14-14 you have to
give Fed the edge because he was better on all surfaces than Pete by a
huge margin.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 12:10:16
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 2:51=A0pm, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> > I'm not sure why you specified "if you were a kid" -- is my
> > hypothetical future self supposed to be naive, or a reasonably
> > sophisticated and knowledgeable fan? But to answer your question, no,
> > I would not find it ridiculous. There is nothing illogical, internally
> > contradictory, or especially troubling (to me) about a statement in
> > the form, "X was the greatest player ever, but he could not beat Y."
> > Anyone who becomes a tennis fan soon learns two important facts:
> > 1. All players lose matches.
> > 2. All players lose matches to lesser players.
>
> > The frequency with which a player loses to someone who can beat him is
> > largely a function of the number of times they meet. If X has a
> > matchup difficulty with Y, and X are Y are both good enough to advance
> > far in tournaments regularly, then X will lose to Y often. I don't
> > think this outcome has much to do with GOAT analysis, unless we depart
> > radically from the generally accepted standard of total career results
> > (however we choose to count them) and adopt a reductionist, "last man
> > standing" approach that allows the "who 'owned' whom" question to
> > trump everything else.
>
> > As I've said before, I understand why some people *feel* that Federer
> > doesn't have a strong claim to GOAT because Nadal has taken his
> > measure in recent slam finals. It just looks weak for any player, GOAT
> > candidate or not, to lose big matches repeatedly to the same opponent.
> > But how outcomes feel and how they look in this sense are not
> > important to me in thinking about GOAT claims. I prefer a system based
> > on neutral criteria that can be specified in advance and applied
> > evenhandedly to everyone, without ad hoc adjustments made to penalize
> > individual players for failing to live up to expectations.
>
> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The "if you were a kid" just meant, if you were growing up 50 years
> from now and viewing Fed's career in a historical context. I take your
> point about match up issues, but shouldn't the GOAT be able to
> overcome these? For instance Rosewall is generally considered superior
> to Laver on clay, but Laver managed to defeat him in an FO final. This
> among other things is why I consider Laver GOAT. Fed on the other hand
> has allowed Nadal not only to dominate him on clay but also to wrest
> control of his favourite surfaces from him. It's true that he may
> still squeak out the highest total of slam wins, but without a revenge
> win against Nadal on clay, I cannot consider him as great as Laver.
>
> Ideally the GOAT should have no weaknesses (i.e. surface, slam or
> match up agaisnt major rivals - who cares about losing the odd match
> in meaningless tournaments to journeymen). I believe Laver is the only
> male tennis player so far who fulfils these criteria. If we rate Fed
> higher than Sampras (I do not, yet) depends on how much
> weight we give to factors such as highest number of raw slam wins,
> plus most yrs and wks as #1, but many poor defeats against many
> players; and utter domination of the field bar one man yet marginally
> less impressive numbers in the slam/#1 categories.

You are under no obligation to equate "the player with the most slams"
with "GOAT." As noted, I do think it is highly preferable to count
something concrete rather than to judge by gut reactions to occasional
embarrassments or career lacunae. But what you decide to count is up
to you.

There is a difference between the greatest tennis career conceivable
and the greatest career that anyone has actually had to date. No one,
including Laver, has had the greatest career conceivable. (It may not
be his fault that he played many years in a divided-circuit era, but
everyone is limited by historical circumstance in one way or another.)
If that leads one to conclude that there is no true GOAT, fine. That's
a perfectly defensible position. But if one is inclined to measure
extant careers against each other rather than against an ideal, then
some of the more fastidious GOAT objections can be dismissed.

Joe Ramirez



 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 11:51:38
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one

> I'm not sure why you specified "if you were a kid" -- is my
> hypothetical future self supposed to be naive, or a reasonably
> sophisticated and knowledgeable fan? But to answer your question, no,
> I would not find it ridiculous. There is nothing illogical, internally
> contradictory, or especially troubling (to me) about a statement in
> the form, "X was the greatest player ever, but he could not beat Y."
> Anyone who becomes a tennis fan soon learns two important facts:
> 1. All players lose matches.
> 2. All players lose matches to lesser players.
>
> The frequency with which a player loses to someone who can beat him is
> largely a function of the number of times they meet. If X has a
> matchup difficulty with Y, and X are Y are both good enough to advance
> far in tournaments regularly, then X will lose to Y often. I don't
> think this outcome has much to do with GOAT analysis, unless we depart
> radically from the generally accepted standard of total career results
> (however we choose to count them) and adopt a reductionist, "last man
> standing" approach that allows the "who 'owned' whom" question to
> trump everything else.
>
> As I've said before, I understand why some people *feel* that Federer
> doesn't have a strong claim to GOAT because Nadal has taken his
> measure in recent slam finals. It just looks weak for any player, GOAT
> candidate or not, to lose big matches repeatedly to the same opponent.
> But how outcomes feel and how they look in this sense are not
> important to me in thinking about GOAT claims. I prefer a system based
> on neutral criteria that can be specified in advance and applied
> evenhandedly to everyone, without ad hoc adjustments made to penalize
> individual players for failing to live up to expectations.
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The "if you were a kid" just meant, if you were growing up 50 years
from now and viewing Fed's career in a historical context. I take your
point about match up issues, but shouldn't the GOAT be able to
overcome these? For instance Rosewall is generally considered superior
to Laver on clay, but Laver managed to defeat him in an FO final. This
among other things is why I consider Laver GOAT. Fed on the other hand
has allowed Nadal not only to dominate him on clay but also to wrest
control of his favourite surfaces from him. It's true that he may
still squeak out the highest total of slam wins, but without a revenge
win against Nadal on clay, I cannot consider him as great as Laver.

Ideally the GOAT should have no weaknesses (i.e. surface, slam or
match up agaisnt major rivals - who cares about losing the odd match
in meaningless tournaments to journeymen). I believe Laver is the only
male tennis player so far who fulfils these criteria. If we rate Fed
higher than Sampras (I do not, yet) depends on how much
weight we give to factors such as highest number of raw slam wins,
plus most yrs and wks as #1, but many poor defeats against many
players; and utter domination of the field bar one man yet marginally
less impressive numbers in the slam/#1 categories.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 10:37:21
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 12:07=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:

>=A0I think Fed's situation with Nadal is causing more concern than
> Sampras failures at FO. =A0They are quite different situations any way
> you view it. =A0To be clear though, saying Sampras was lame on clay is
> ridiculous, of course. =A0He won IO and has quite a unique
> accomplishment in winning 95 DC.

You are arguing about which assertion has more merit. My point was
that they are the same *kind* of assertion -- targeted objections
directed at an individual player that bestow veto power over GOAT
claims on a single weakness, abandoning any pretense of examining a
complete career in context.

It should be noted, however, that Federer's best results against Nadal
-- two Wimbledon titles (not even counting his YEC wins) -- are
superior to Sampras' best results on clay. So, if Sampras was not
"lame on clay," then Federer has not been "lame against Nadal."
Conversely, if Fed is a loser against Nadal, then Sampras was a loser
on clay.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 10:12:45
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 12:25=A0pm, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:53 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 11:08 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all sla=
m
> > > > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuin=
e clown
> > > > > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals =
to Rafa.
>
> > > > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how =
it
> > > > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > > > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > > > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > > > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. =
I
> > > > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details with=
in
> > > > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with yea=
rs
> > > > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > > > determinant.
>
> > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > I think he means common sense definition.
>
> > There is no such thing.
>
> > > You simply cannot have a
> > > GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.
>
> > Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
> > emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
> > a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
> > on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
> > not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
> > of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.
>
> > > Fed has done fuck-
> > > all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills an=
d
> > > weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. =A0 GOAT can=
not
> > > relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
> > > most important rivalry.
>
> > That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
> > single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
> > However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
> > way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
> > rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:http://grou=
ps.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
> > and this follow-up:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/=
eac3f561ea3c3185
>
> > The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
> > titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
> > "dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
> > combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
> > infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
> > subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
> > at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
> > debated somewhat productively.
>
> > The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
> > mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
> > taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
> > satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
> > standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
> > arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
> > the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
> > than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
> > two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
> > cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
> > rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Wouldn't you find it ridiculous though if you were a kid growing up in
> 50 years time and were told that the tennis GOAT (not just a great,
> but the Greatest Male Player of All Time) is Federer, but then you
> looked through his record and discovered that he was usurped by the
> only other great champ of his era, who not only dominated him on his
> (Nadal's) favourite surface, but then dethroned Fed on the surfaces
> where he was dominant?

I'm not sure why you specified "if you were a kid" -- is my
hypothetical future self supposed to be naive, or a reasonably
sophisticated and knowledgeable fan? But to answer your question, no,
I would not find it ridiculous. There is nothing illogical, internally
contradictory, or especially troubling (to me) about a statement in
the form, "X was the greatest player ever, but he could not beat Y."
Anyone who becomes a tennis fan soon learns two important facts:
1. All players lose matches.
2. All players lose matches to lesser players.

The frequency with which a player loses to someone who can beat him is
largely a function of the number of times they meet. If X has a
matchup difficulty with Y, and X are Y are both good enough to advance
far in tournaments regularly, then X will lose to Y often. I don't
think this outcome has much to do with GOAT analysis, unless we depart
radically from the generally accepted standard of total career results
(however we choose to count them) and adopt a reductionist, "last man
standing" approach that allows the "who 'owned' whom" question to
trump everything else.

As I've said before, I understand why some people *feel* that Federer
doesn't have a strong claim to GOAT because Nadal has taken his
measure in recent slam finals. It just looks weak for any player, GOAT
candidate or not, to lose big matches repeatedly to the same opponent.
But how outcomes feel and how they look in this sense are not
important to me in thinking about GOAT claims. I prefer a system based
on neutral criteria that can be specified in advance and applied
evenhandedly to everyone, without ad hoc adjustments made to penalize
individual players for failing to live up to expectations.

Joe Ramirez


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 09:30:10
From:
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 12:25=A0pm, "Silence, Fedfucker!"
<thetruetennisg...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 4:53 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 11:08 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all sla=
m
> > > > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuin=
e clown
> > > > > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals =
to Rafa.
>
> > > > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how =
it
> > > > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > > > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > > > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > > > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. =
I
> > > > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details with=
in
> > > > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with yea=
rs
> > > > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > > > determinant.
>
> > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > > I think he means common sense definition.
>
> > There is no such thing.
>
> > > You simply cannot have a
> > > GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.
>
> > Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
> > emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
> > a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
> > on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
> > not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
> > of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.
>
> > > Fed has done fuck-
> > > all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills an=
d
> > > weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. =A0 GOAT can=
not
> > > relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
> > > most important rivalry.
>
> > That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
> > single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
> > However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
> > way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
> > rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:http://grou=
ps.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
> > and this follow-up:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/=
eac3f561ea3c3185
>
> > The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
> > titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
> > "dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
> > combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
> > infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
> > subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
> > at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
> > debated somewhat productively.
>
> > The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
> > mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
> > taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
> > satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
> > standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
> > arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
> > the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
> > than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
> > two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
> > cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
> > rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Wouldn't you find it ridiculous though if you were a kid growing up in
> 50 years time and were told that the tennis GOAT (not just a great,
> but the Greatest Male Player of All Time) is Federer, but then you
> looked through his record and discovered that he was usurped by the
> only other great champ of his era, who not only dominated him on his
> (Nadal's) favourite surface, but then dethroned Fed on the surfaces
> where he was dominant? Surely such a player, who didn't even rise to
> the challenge in his own era, can't truly be considered the GOAT? At
> the most he could be a contender, but one with a serious flaw. (Yes, I
> am aware that everyone except perhaps Laver has some kind of gap,
> however this is an unforgivable one, i.e. being bested by your only
> serious rival on all surfaces in your own era).
>
> Bottom line: =A0 unless Fed turns it around against Nadal, and
> preferably by winning the French, he will have to rack up huge numbers
> to become GOAT.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 09:25:31
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 4:53 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:08 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
> > > > era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>
> > > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> > > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> > > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> > > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> > > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > > determinant.
>
> > > Thank you.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > I think he means common sense definition.
>
> There is no such thing.
>
> > You simply cannot have a
> > GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.
>
> Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
> emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
> a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
> on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
> not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
> of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.
>
> > Fed has done fuck-
> > all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
> > weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. GOAT cannot
> > relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
> > most important rivalry.
>
> That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
> single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
> However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
> way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
> rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
> and this follow-up:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/eac3f561ea3c3185
>
> The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
> titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
> "dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
> combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
> infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
> subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
> at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
> debated somewhat productively.
>
> The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
> mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
> taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
> satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
> standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
> arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
> the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
> than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
> two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
> cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
> rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Wouldn't you find it ridiculous though if you were a kid growing up in
50 years time and were told that the tennis GOAT (not just a great,
but the Greatest Male Player of All Time) is Federer, but then you
looked through his record and discovered that he was usurped by the
only other great champ of his era, who not only dominated him on his
(Nadal's) favourite surface, but then dethroned Fed on the surfaces
where he was dominant? Surely such a player, who didn't even rise to
the challenge in his own era, can't truly be considered the GOAT? At
the most he could be a contender, but one with a serious flaw. (Yes, I
am aware that everyone except perhaps Laver has some kind of gap,
however this is an unforgivable one, i.e. being bested by your only
serious rival on all surfaces in your own era).

Bottom line: unless Fed turns it around against Nadal, and
preferably by winning the French, he will have to rack up huge numbers
to become GOAT.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 09:22:37
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 19, 3:15=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:38=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine cl=
own
> > > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to R=
afa.
>
> > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > determinant.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Do you think Whisper stays up at night thinking, how on God's Earth
> did Fed get this close to Pete on 7543? ;-)

yes he regrets not making it 9521

the two is to also take care of rafa at the FO in the future in case
he starts getting high up on the whispy system ;-)


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 09:07:30
From:
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 11:53=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:08=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 9:38=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 19, 2:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine =
clown
> > > > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to=
Rafa.
>
> > > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> > > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> > > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> > > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> > > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > > determinant.
>
> > > Thank you.
>
> > > Joe Ramirez
>
> > I think he means common sense definition.
>
> There is no such thing.
>
> > You simply cannot have a
> > GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.
>
> Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
> emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
> a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
> on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
> not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
> of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.
>
> > Fed has done fuck-
> > all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
> > weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. =A0 GOAT canno=
t
> > relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
> > most important rivalry.
>
> That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
> single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
> However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
> way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
> rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:http://groups=
.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
> and this follow-up:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/ea=
c3f561ea3c3185
>
> The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
> titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
> "dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
> combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
> infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
> subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
> at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
> debated somewhat productively.
>
> The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
> mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
> taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
> satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
> standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
> arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
> the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
> than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
> two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
> cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
> rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.
>
> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It is subjective. I think my thinking is probably reasonably well in
line with how the players think, but maybe not. I didn't expect or
want it to end up this way for Fed--I blew the call on how ths would
go. I think Fed's situation with Nadal is causing more concern than
Sampras failures at FO. They are quite different situations any way
you view it. To be clear though, saying Sampras was lame on clay is
ridiculous, of course. He won IO and has quite a unique
accomplishment in winning 95 DC.



 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 08:59:43
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 19, 11:08=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:38=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine cl=
own
> > > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to R=
afa.
>
> > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > determinant.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> I think he means common sense definition. =A0You simply cannot have a
> GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface. =A0Fed has done fuck-
> all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
> weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. =A0 GOAT cannot
> relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
> most important rivalry.
>
> 7543 is a good first-cut look at GOATs but it does not account for an
> anomaly such as where a guy vying for most slam titles is getting
> dominated and beat at the slam he supposedly owns--and Fed is the one
> walking around in the special jacket with 5 little racquets, so he's
> gotta have thought he owned the joint. =A0He almost got tossed in 3. =A0I
> have seen more detailed GOAT formulas like mikko's that yielded pretty
> similar results to 7543 if I recall, but even that one wouldn't
> account for Fed's situation with Nadal. =A0But who can ignore it? =A0I
> won't have a goat that has been had like this, so Fed needs to balance
> the books with Nadal. =A0 If he gets 16 but still in arrears with rafa
> at the slams we can talk, but 14-15 isn't gonna cut it anymore unless
> there is an FO title involved.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm sure Whisper considers Mac the best player of the 80s even though
he lost the last 4 Slam matches to Lendl,
including three in straight sets. And in that case those guys were the
same age. So if Mac can be best of 80s, why can't Fed be goat
according to you guys if he has the best 7543 score?

I'm familiar with Whisper's argument, that Mac's Slam-winning days
were done. But we can say something similar with Fed, that after 2007
his days of Slam-winning dominance are done so now he's just hanging
on, looking to break Pete's record and it's only natural that a
younger all-time great like Nadal dominates the rivalry.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 08:53:46
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Feb 19, 11:08=A0am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:38=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine cl=
own
> > > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to R=
afa.
>
> > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > determinant.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> I think he means common sense definition.

There is no such thing.

> You simply cannot have a
> GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.

Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.

> Fed has done fuck-
> all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
> weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. =A0 GOAT cannot
> relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
> most important rivalry.

That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
and this follow-up:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/eac3f561ea3c3185

The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
"dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
debated somewhat productively.

The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.

Joe Ramirez







  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 17:20:44
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 11:08 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
>>>> finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
>>>> era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>>> "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
>>> precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
>>> apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
>>> GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>>> Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
>>> assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
>>> 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
>>> of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
>>> determinant.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> I think he means common sense definition.
>
> There is no such thing.
>
>> You simply cannot have a
>> GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.
>
> Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
> emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
> a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
> on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
> not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
> of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.
>
>> Fed has done fuck-
>> all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
>> weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. GOAT cannot
>> relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
>> most important rivalry.
>
> That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
> single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
> However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
> way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
> rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
> and this follow-up:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/eac3f561ea3c3185
>
> The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
> titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
> "dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
> combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
> infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
> subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
> at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
> debated somewhat productively.
>
> The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
> mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
> taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
> satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
> standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
> arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
> the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
> than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
> two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
> cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
> rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.
>
> Joe Ramirez
>
>


It's not as complicated as it seems. If Fed wins 20 slams & 120 7543
points he's goat, but if Fed had to play Rafa at peak on grass would he
win? Who would you pick if your life was on the line?

Does it make sense not to pick the goat?

It's always been Achievement, ability & talent. It woulda been great if
McEnroe made the most of his ability & won 2 calendar slams to claim all
3 titles, but the reality is something different. We clearly get guys
who were greater (Borg/Fed) not being better than their nearest rivals
(Mac/Rafa).



   
Date: 20 Feb 2009 06:29:50
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:20:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au >
wrote:

>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 11:08 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>> The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
>>>>> finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
>>>>> era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>>>> "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
>>>> precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
>>>> apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
>>>> GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>>>> Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
>>>> assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
>>>> 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
>>>> of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
>>>> determinant.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>> I think he means common sense definition.
>>
>> There is no such thing.
>>
>>> You simply cannot have a
>>> GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.
>>
>> Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
>> emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
>> a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
>> on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
>> not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
>> of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.
>>
>>> Fed has done fuck-
>>> all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
>>> weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. GOAT cannot
>>> relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
>>> most important rivalry.
>>
>> That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
>> single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
>> However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
>> way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
>> rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
>> and this follow-up:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/eac3f561ea3c3185
>>
>> The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
>> titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
>> "dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
>> combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
>> infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
>> subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
>> at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
>> debated somewhat productively.
>>
>> The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
>> mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
>> taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
>> satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
>> standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
>> arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
>> the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
>> than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
>> two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
>> cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
>> rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>>
>>
>
>
>It's not as complicated as it seems. If Fed wins 20 slams & 120 7543
>points he's goat, but if Fed had to play Rafa at peak on grass would he
>win? Who would you pick if your life was on the line?
>
>Does it make sense not to pick the goat?
>
>It's always been Achievement, ability & talent. It woulda been great if
>McEnroe made the most of his ability & won 2 calendar slams to claim all
>3 titles, but the reality is something different. We clearly get guys
>who were greater (Borg/Fed) not being better than their nearest rivals
>(Mac/Rafa).


you forgot agassi >sampras and lendl>mac. i am sure that was just a
oversight.


    
Date: 20 Feb 2009 21:10:46
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
Superdave wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:20:44 +1100, Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>> On Feb 19, 11:08 am, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
>>>>>> finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
>>>>>> era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>>>>> "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
>>>>> precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
>>>>> apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
>>>>> GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>>>>> Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
>>>>> assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
>>>>> 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
>>>>> of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
>>>>> determinant.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>> I think he means common sense definition.
>>> There is no such thing.
>>>
>>>> You simply cannot have a
>>>> GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface.
>>> Why? What is the basis for this axiom? It seems like seat-of-the-pants
>>> emotionalism to me, rather than a legitimate attempt to define GOAT in
>>> a generally applicable way. Tennis is a sport of tournaments, not one-
>>> on-one bouts. Achievements come from defeating a series of players,
>>> not a single one. A career is most accurately viewed as a collection
>>> of such achievements, not a set of a few big matches.
>>>
>>>> Fed has done fuck-
>>>> all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
>>>> weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. GOAT cannot
>>>> relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
>>>> most important rivalry.
>>> That is a purely subjective, ad hoc requirement created to rule out a
>>> single player. If you personally find it compelling, then fine.
>>> However, because it cannot be generalized and applied in a systematic
>>> way to all players, it fails as a criterion in any kind of semi-
>>> rigorous GOAT analysis. For more explanation, see this post:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/d43af9a5d222ff5a
>>> and this follow-up:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/eac3f561ea3c3185
>>>
>>> The best way to determine a GOAT is by counting -- whether slam
>>> titles, weeks or years at no. 1, tournament titles, years of
>>> "dominance," points on a homemade weighting system, or some
>>> combination of these items. Of course, such a methodology is far from
>>> infallible, and the selection of things to count is inescapably
>>> subjective, but at least the system can be extended to all players (or
>>> at least all in a common era), can be applied consistently, and can be
>>> debated somewhat productively.
>>>
>>> The principal alternative, apparently, is the idiosyncratic, emotional
>>> mishmash approach: the GOAT is whoever *seems* like the GOAT to me,
>>> taking into account anything I find relevant. This approach may be
>>> satisfying, even compelling, to each individual applying his own
>>> standards, but usually produces a mess of contradictions, biased
>>> arguments, and incommensurable tests. The Whisper/Blanders notion that
>>> the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
>>> than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay." The
>>> two criteria have equal standing as slippery personal rules that
>>> cannot be validated and appear designed simply to exclude players
>>> rather than to zero in on the best overall candidate.
>>>
>>> Joe Ramirez
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's not as complicated as it seems. If Fed wins 20 slams & 120 7543
>> points he's goat, but if Fed had to play Rafa at peak on grass would he
>> win? Who would you pick if your life was on the line?
>>
>> Does it make sense not to pick the goat?
>>
>> It's always been Achievement, ability & talent. It woulda been great if
>> McEnroe made the most of his ability & won 2 calendar slams to claim all
>> 3 titles, but the reality is something different. We clearly get guys
>> who were greater (Borg/Fed) not being better than their nearest rivals
>> (Mac/Rafa).
>
>
> you forgot agassi>sampras and lendl>mac. i am sure that was just a
> oversight.



Sampras > Agassi in achievement (7543 + no.1 record), ability (6-0 at
Wim/USO & better h2h on all 3 surfaces) & obviously far more talented.

Mac > Lendl in achievement (7543), talent & ability.



  
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:07:42
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Counting or mishmash: choose one
Joe Ramirez wrote:
>The Whisper/Blanders notion that
> the GOAT can't lose slam finals to a major rival *is no more valid*
> than the Hazelwood claim that the GOAT can't be "lame on clay."

I think Whisper/blanders also meant Federer can't become GOAT if he is
losing slam final to his major rival, ie failing to win slams at all.

You didn't refer to that?





 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 08:50:34
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 19, 3:15 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
> > > era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>
> > "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> > precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> > apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> > GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> > Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> > assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> > 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> > of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> > determinant.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> Do you think Whisper stays up at night thinking, how on God's Earth
> did Fed get this close to Pete on 7543? ;-)

He just stays up at night thinking of Pete, period.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 08:08:00
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 19, 9:38=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clow=
n
> > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Raf=
a.
>
> "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> determinant.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joe Ramirez

I think he means common sense definition. You simply cannot have a
GOAT being beat by a rival on every slam surface. Fed has done fuck-
all with his game to counteract this, while Nadal has added skills and
weapons to beat Fed in the biggest grass and hc matches. GOAT cannot
relinquish his natural advantages to end up on the wrong side of his
most important rivalry.

7543 is a good first-cut look at GOATs but it does not account for an
anomaly such as where a guy vying for most slam titles is getting
dominated and beat at the slam he supposedly owns--and Fed is the one
walking around in the special jacket with 5 little racquets, so he's
gotta have thought he owned the joint. He almost got tossed in 3. I
have seen more detailed GOAT formulas like mikko's that yielded pretty
similar results to 7543 if I recall, but even that one wouldn't
account for Fed's situation with Nadal. But who can ignore it? I
won't have a goat that has been had like this, so Fed needs to balance
the books with Nadal. If he gets 16 but still in arrears with rafa
at the slams we can talk, but 14-15 isn't gonna cut it anymore unless
there is an FO title involved.


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 07:15:48
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 19, 9:38=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> > finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clow=
n
> > era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Raf=
a.
>
> "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> determinant.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joe Ramirez

Do you think Whisper stays up at night thinking, how on God's Earth
did Fed get this close to Pete on 7543? ;-)


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 16:55:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:38 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
>>> finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
>>> era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>> "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
>> precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
>> apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
>> GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>>
>> Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
>> assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
>> 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
>> of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
>> determinant.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
> Do you think Whisper stays up at night thinking, how on God's Earth
> did Fed get this close to Pete on 7543? ;-)


No, it's always possible 80 pts will 1 day fall if a great player gets a
little lucky with injuries/soft opposition & makes the most of it. That
player will surely deserve it, even if they have relatively few
Wimbledons as that means they just have to win a lot more at other slams
to make up the quality shortfall.

What I object to is lesser decorated players being touted as goat due to
ceibs & fanfucking. We should all be vigilant against this scourge &
knock them on the head as soon as they appear. It's fine to be a Fed
fan or Rafa fan, but please no goat bullshit until they get close. Fed
just now deserves to be in discussion after getting to 69 pts, but he's
still not caught Sampras let alone claimed goat status.







 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 06:38:48
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 19, 2:23=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
> finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
> era. =A0The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.

"By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
GOAT candidates, past, present and future.

Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
determinant.

Thank you.

Joe Ramirez


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 16:42:58
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
Joe Ramirez wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2:23 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
>> finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
>> era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
>
> "By definition"? Please state your GOAT definition and explain how it
> precludes such results. Remember that, as a definition, it cannot
> apply merely to Federer -- it must be universally applicable to all
> GOAT candidates, past, present and future.
>
> Next, explain how that definition is derived from the 7543 system. I
> assume the GOAT definition must be implicit in all its details within
> 7543 -- otherwise you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with years
> of proclamations about the efficacy of 7543 as the sole GOAT
> determinant.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Joe Ramirez


I've always maintained 7543 measures 'achievement' & not 'ability' or
'talent'. I've been more vocal in this in recent months due to obvious
fact Rafa is a better player than Federer, & how can this make sense in
relation to 7543. This is not a unique situation - Mac was clearly a
better player than Borg (ability & talent), but 7543 tells us he
achieved more in the categories that really count, so is greater player.

If you look at the archives I've made this point a lot - eg while Borg
won 6 FO's he may struggle to win 1 in another era, same deal for Rafa.
No amount of ceibs fanfucking can prove otherwise - Drew/Haze types
who simply say 'it just is' are a complete waste of time as they have no
shred of evidence so can be safely ignored. Just the same as I have no
evidence Sampras would comfortably beat Federer 4/5 at Wim/USO at peaks,
it's just my educated opinion. For all we know Vilas may have beaten
both Fed & Sampras at Wimbledon. That doesn't matter as it has nothing
to do with tangible achievements.







 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 20:32:35
From: Quincy
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 11:20=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 3:45 pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Sampras =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A078%
> >>> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A075%
> >>> Federer =A0 =A072%
> >>> Newcombe =A0 70%
> >>> Borg =A0 =A0 =A0 69%
> >>> Laver =A0 =A0 =A065%
> >>> McEnroe =A0 =A064%
> >>> Wilander =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 64%
> >>> Becker =A0 =A0 60%
> >>> Edberg =A0 =A0 55%
> >>> Agassi =A0 =A0 53%
> >>> Connors =A0 =A053%
> >>> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A042%
> >>> Close to GOAT list !
> >> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> >> is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> > You're retarded..
>
> > Highest slam final winning % combined with most slam titles--that's
> > pretty nice.
>
> Like I've always said Sampras is the best big match player ever. =A0How
> many great Wimbledon champs never lost a final? =A0Even Laver lost 2 -
> Borg, Mac & Federer also lost Wimbledon finals. =A0The fact he reached an
> incredible 7 finals & won them all makes a big statement.

Of course, Sampras' Wimbldon record in finals is amazing. But please
Whisper, look at his opponents after 1996. This is nothing to be proud
of!
If Sampras had character he would have folded/tanked those finals. A
shame for Tennis!


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 20:28:03
From: Quincy
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 11:20=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 3:45 pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Sampras =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A078%
> >>> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A075%
> >>> Federer =A0 =A072%
> >>> Newcombe =A0 70%
> >>> Borg =A0 =A0 =A0 69%
> >>> Laver =A0 =A0 =A065%
> >>> McEnroe =A0 =A064%
> >>> Wilander =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 64%
> >>> Becker =A0 =A0 60%
> >>> Edberg =A0 =A0 55%
> >>> Agassi =A0 =A0 53%
> >>> Connors =A0 =A053%
> >>> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A042%
> >>> Close to GOAT list !
> >> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> >> is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> > You're retarded..
>
> > Highest slam final winning % combined with most slam titles--that's
> > pretty nice.
>
> Like I've always said Sampras is the best big match player ever. =A0How
> many great Wimbledon champs never lost a final? =A0Even Laver lost 2 -
> Borg, Mac & Federer also lost Wimbledon finals. =A0The fact he reached an
> incredible 7 finals & won them all makes a big statement. =A0Raja's
> 'dominator' made 2 finals & never won a single set.

This domination stuff is a lot of crap. Only because Lendl hardly lost
against the journeyman and won e.g. 1989 a bunch of tune-ups against
Tennis player you wouldn't even recognise as a Tennis player he speaks
about "Domination".
This is only bullshit.
He lost on every import occasion against Becker, even against Pat
Cash.
This is all but domination!

>
> No point dismissing Wimbledon as unimportant when Lendl himself said
> he'd swap his whole career for just 1 Wimbledon crown.

Wimdledon is shit because Lendl never made it. Raja's point.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 16:26:14
From: Hops
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 2:20 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:

> No point dismissing Wimbledon as unimportant when Lendl himself said
> he'd swap his whole career for just 1 Wimbledon crown.


hardy har har. links?




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 12:12:00
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 12:27=A0pm, "bue" <kikash.at...@il.com > wrote:
> <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:09c26c1b-1f91-4111-b7f3-56a76b4acc53@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Your concentration & focus are gone.
> > You need some bueatch slapping.
>
> You need some brain to discuss GOATs. And some music taste.

Don't care what the little bueatch think of me.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:30:07
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 10:06=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 18, 10:47=A0am, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Also he was not a very fit guy until 1984. He was hospitalized after
> > the 1984 FO final. Starting 1985 he hooked up with Tony Roche and
> > started having a strict regimen and proper diet. That helped him a lot
> > as well.
>
> Bingo. Just a shame he didn't do this at age 21.

As I said, he was from a commie country who screwed him over until
1982 and he had to play a lot to making some money. He only stopped
insane amount of tournaments in 1983 when he quit the Czechoslovakian
federation. I dont think he loses sleep over not being called GOAT by
tennis junkies, even now. He infact touts Laver, Borg, Federer,
Sampras for GOAT. He does not include himself.

"In July 1983, Lendl played three exhibition matches (against Johan
Kriek, Kevin Curren, and Jimmy Connors) in Sun City, in the apartheid-
era bantustan of Bophuthatswana.[7] The Czechoslovak Sport Federation
(=C8STV), controlled by the Communist Party, expelled him from the
Czechoslovak Davis Cup team, fined him $150,000,[8] and publicly
threatened to prohibit him from traveling abroad for future
tournaments.[citation needed] Lendl disagreed with the punishment and
fine. He has not travelled to his native country since being there for
the last time for the Davis Cup in March 1982.[citation needed]

In addition, the publication of his name and results in the
Czechoslovak media was prohibited. The ban was extended not only to
Lendl, but to anything about world tennis, all tennis tournaments, and
both men's and women's circuits (with the exception of blank Grand
Slam results without any comments). World tennis disappeared from the
censored Czechoslovak media[citation needed] on August 16, 1983, when
this "secret embargo" came into effect.

The appearance in this exhibition in Sun City and Lendl's Americanized
living style ignited a long-lasting dispute between Lendl and
Czechoslovak authorities, which was never settled and resulted in
Ivan's decision to apply for a green card in 1987 and later on for
U.S. citizenship."


His personality is not like that. He is very classy, just like Steffi
Graf. When Steffi Graf was asked about GOAT, she said Navratilova is
the best bet. She is modest and classy too.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:23:32
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 11:16=A0am, "bue" <kikash.at...@il.com > wrote:
> "Raja" <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Because it's a) ontopic, unlike your stupid band lists, and b) closer =
to
> >> GOAT than any of your pathetic Lendl boosting crap.
> > The Bueatch is Back
>
> Your concentration & focus are gone.

You need some bueatch slapping.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 19:27:09
From: bue
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

<zepfloyes@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:09c26c1b-1f91-4111-b7f3-56a76b4acc53@j1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>> Your concentration & focus are gone.

> You need some bueatch slapping.

You need some brain to discuss GOATs. And some music taste.




 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 08:06:20
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 10:47=A0am, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Also he was not a very fit guy until 1984. He was hospitalized after
> the 1984 FO final. Starting 1985 he hooked up with Tony Roche and
> started having a strict regimen and proper diet. That helped him a lot
> as well.

Bingo. Just a shame he didn't do this at age 21.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 07:47:16
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 8:01=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:42=A0am, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 6:49=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 7:46=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 6:45=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 6:55=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 5:04=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> =
wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > > > > > > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > > > > > > > >> Federer 72%
> > > > > > > > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > > > > > > > >> Borg 69%
> > > > > > > > > >> Laver 65%
> > > > > > > > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > > > > > > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > > > > > > > >> Becker 60%
> > > > > > > > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > > > > > > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > > > > > > > >> Connors 53%
> > > > > > > > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > > > > > > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > > > > > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > > > > > > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't =
you?
>
> > > > > > > > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> > > > > > > He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>
> > > > > > My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
> > > > > > calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record=
. I
> > > > > > guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam=
win %.
> > > > > > She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
> > > > > because it could rate a player
> > > > > who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam f=
inal
> > > > > over someone who won many more
> > > > > Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>
> > > > > But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
> > > > > winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universall=
y
> > > > > recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wi=
mbys
> > > > > thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.
>
> > > > If he played in Sampras era it would have been probably 17-2- Hide =
quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Lendl had more than enough ability to win the vast majority of those
> > > Slam finals, so no need to whine about
> > > the relative competition of different eras.
>
> > Not whining, just explaining the fact. Sampras got away with Pioline,
> > Chang, Moya, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Martin types.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The thing is the normal time for great players to win Slams is when
> they're 21-26 or so. Lendl did great after
> the age of 25, but from 81-84 when he could've been dominating to the
> same degree Fed or Sampras did he only won 1 Slam.

He played 101 tournaments between 1980-82 and he clearly wasnt serious
about slams. What he was interested was in only making money. He
skipped Wimbledon and AO when he was having his best year.

By 1983 he had a lot of money and had also become #1, so he started
focusing on slams (except AO, which no one really cared about). He
definitely shouldnt have lost to Connors at the USO in 1983. In 1984
he was injured and Mac was too good at the USO. So we can say the only
final which really he dearly wanted to win and still lost was USO 1983
and USO 1984 in the 1979-84 period. After that he was of course a
major champion.

Also he was not a very fit guy until 1984. He was hospitalized after
the 1984 FO final. Starting 1985 he hooked up with Tony Roche and
started having a strict regimen and proper diet. That helped him a lot
as well. Also he became a much better volleyer and improved his
backhand allround. Those were the key to success.

So essentially we can say Lendl had two halfs in his career (1979-84
and 1985-90). In the first one he was only bothered with making money.
In the second half he wanted to be highly regarded and seriously
dominate the tour in terms of slams and tournaments. He was also much
more focussed on his fitness in the second part of his career. The
third (1991-94) part of his career was mostly ruined through
injuries.




>I think Ivan gets
> unfairly criticized for big-match losses to Becker in 89 or 91 when
> it's only natural that he would be in decline and Becker was at peak.
> But he can't get let off the hook for those two losses to Connors. Any
> chance at goat for him was pretty much over after that 83 USO final
> because that meant he headed into the 84 season still Slam-less at age
> 24.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 07:40:57
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 9:49=A0am, "john" <jli...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:499be1cc$0$672$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 6:55 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> On Feb 17, 4:47 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 17, 3:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Sampras 78%
> >>>>>>>> Nadal 75%
> >>>>>>>> Federer 72%
> >>>>>>>> Newcombe 70%
> >>>>>>>> Borg 69%
> >>>>>>>> Laver 65%
> >>>>>>>> McEnroe 64%
> >>>>>>>> Wilander 64%
> >>>>>>>> Becker 60%
> >>>>>>>> Edberg 55%
> >>>>>>>> Agassi 53%
> >>>>>>>> Connors 53%
> >>>>>>>> Lendl 42%
> >>>>>> Dreadful slam-final record.
> >>>>>>>> Close to GOAT list !
> >>>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever.
> >>>>>> No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
> >>>>> He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
> >>>> He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
> >>> My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
> >>> calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
> >>> guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %=
.
> >>> She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
> >> because it could rate a player
> >> who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
> >> over someone who won many more
> >> Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>
> >> But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
> >> winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
> >> recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
> >> thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.
>
> > It's very telling that Sampras won the most slams in history & also has
> > the best success rate - amazing he could keep it up.
>
> Yes, of course he can keep it up and facing Martin and Pioline type
> certainly help a lot.
> Lendl in contrast had to play Edberg, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and
> Connors in
> the finals.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But you have to ask: if Hewitt and Safin can take out aging Pete in
USO finals, why couldn't
peak Lendl beat an aging Connors in 82/83?


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 06:01:36
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 8:42=A0am, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 6:49=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 7:46=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 6:45=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 6:55=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 5:04=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wr=
ote:
> > > > > > > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > > > > > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > > > > > > >> Federer 72%
> > > > > > > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > > > > > > >> Borg 69%
> > > > > > > > >> Laver 65%
> > > > > > > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > > > > > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > > > > > > >> Becker 60%
> > > > > > > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > > > > > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > > > > > > >> Connors 53%
> > > > > > > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > > > > > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > > > > > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > > > > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > > > > > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't yo=
u?
>
> > > > > > > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> > > > > > He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>
> > > > > My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
> > > > > calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. =
I
> > > > > guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam w=
in %.
> > > > > She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
> > > > because it could rate a player
> > > > who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam fin=
al
> > > > over someone who won many more
> > > > Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>
> > > > But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
> > > > winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
> > > > recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimb=
ys
> > > > thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.
>
> > > If he played in Sampras era it would have been probably 17-2- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Lendl had more than enough ability to win the vast majority of those
> > Slam finals, so no need to whine about
> > the relative competition of different eras.
>
> Not whining, just explaining the fact. Sampras got away with Pioline,
> Chang, Moya, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Martin types.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The thing is the normal time for great players to win Slams is when
they're 21-26 or so. Lendl did great after
the age of 25, but from 81-84 when he could've been dominating to the
same degree Fed or Sampras did he only won 1 Slam. I think Ivan gets
unfairly criticized for big-match losses to Becker in 89 or 91 when
it's only natural that he would be in decline and Becker was at peak.
But he can't get let off the hook for those two losses to Connors. Any
chance at goat for him was pretty much over after that 83 USO final
because that meant he headed into the 84 season still Slam-less at age
24.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 05:42:04
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 18, 6:49=A0am, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 7:46=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 6:45=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 6:55=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 5:04=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrot=
e:
> > > > > > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > > > > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > > > > > >> Federer 72%
> > > > > > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > > > > > >> Borg 69%
> > > > > > > >> Laver 65%
> > > > > > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > > > > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > > > > > >> Becker 60%
> > > > > > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > > > > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > > > > > >> Connors 53%
> > > > > > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > > > > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > > > > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > > > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > > > > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> > > > > > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> > > > > He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>
> > > > My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
> > > > calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
> > > > guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win=
%.
> > > > She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
> > > because it could rate a player
> > > who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
> > > over someone who won many more
> > > Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>
> > > But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
> > > winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
> > > recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
> > > thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.
>
> > If he played in Sampras era it would have been probably 17-2- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Lendl had more than enough ability to win the vast majority of those
> Slam finals, so no need to whine about
> the relative competition of different eras.

Not whining, just explaining the fact. Sampras got away with Pioline,
Chang, Moya, Ivanisevic, Rafter, Martin types.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 04:49:41
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 7:46=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:45=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 6:55=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 5:04=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > > > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > > > > >> Federer 72%
> > > > > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > > > > >> Borg 69%
> > > > > > >> Laver 65%
> > > > > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > > > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > > > > >> Becker 60%
> > > > > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > > > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > > > > >> Connors 53%
> > > > > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > > > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > > > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > > > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> > > > > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> > > > He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>
> > > My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
> > > calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
> > > guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %=
.
> > > She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
> > because it could rate a player
> > who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
> > over someone who won many more
> > Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>
> > But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
> > winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
> > recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
> > thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.
>
> If he played in Sampras era it would have been probably 17-2- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Lendl had more than enough ability to win the vast majority of those
Slam finals, so no need to whine about
the relative competition of different eras.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 03:50:28
From: Old_Golden_Throat
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
Sampras was a great fast court player, but Federer is right there with
him. Federer is better on clay, but it hurts him for his particular
statistic. That is all.

FWIW:

Greatness: Sampras is tops.

Best list: I have Federer and McEnroe tops.

Sampras is tops on the more important category, with Federer
threatening.

Bye.


 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 03:05:07
From: Old_Golden_Throat
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
The point:

if Federer was as weak on clay as Sampras was, his record would be
13-2?

0-3 French is negative, but it's better than 0-0.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 22:24:40
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
Old_Golden_Throat wrote:
> The point:
>
> if Federer was as weak on clay as Sampras was, his record would be
> 13-2?
>
> 0-3 French is negative, but it's better than 0-0.


Again with all the excuses. What is it with you guys?

Do you ever stop to think why all the experts predicted Sampras for
goathood & rst noobs keep making excuses eg Korda didn't try, didn't win
FO etc?

There's lots of things all players didn't achieve. A guy who wins each
slam twice for a total of 8 slams in say a 12 yr career would not make
tier 1. This should tell you it's kinda dumb focussing on what players
didn't achieve at the expense of their overall record. The *only* time
Sampras' lack of FO will come into play is when a player matches his
overall greatness. There's no point saying Agassi & Perry won all the
slams when they aren't in the goat conversation.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:11:46
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
serve & volley wrote:
> Sampras 78%
> Nadal 75%
> Federer 72%
> Newcombe 70%
> Borg 69%
> Laver 65%
> McEnroe 64%
> Wilander 64%
> Becker 60%
> Edberg 55%
> Agassi 53%
> Connors 53%
> Lendl 42%
>
> Close to GOAT list !


If Rafa wins his next slam final he will match Sampras in percentage
terms - 7/9 = 14/18 - but of course the fact Sampras maintained that
ratio over twice as many slam finals is phenomenal.



 
Date: 18 Feb 2009 02:05:04
From: Old_Golden_Throat
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
My two cents.

Some players were not good enough to reach the championship match on
each surface.

Federer's win% on hard/grass is better than Sampras'.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:53:14
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
Old_Golden_Throat wrote:
> My two cents.
>
> Some players were not good enough to reach the championship match on
> each surface.
>
> Federer's win% on hard/grass is better than Sampras'.


2 cents is too expensive for that analysis.



   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:05:42
From: john
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499be89b$0$641$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Old_Golden_Throat wrote:
>> My two cents.
>>
>> Some players were not good enough to reach the championship match on
>> each surface.
>>
>> Federer's win% on hard/grass is better than Sampras'.
>
>
> 2 cents is too expensive for that analysis.
>

Better analysis than yours Whisper, of course anyone with normal
intelligence will be able to
do that quite easily. It is only the Pete fuckers that can't accept
analysis base on fact.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 17:20:25
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 7:10=A0pm, "bue" <kikash.at...@il.com > wrote:
> <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:abdd6795-d972-42ba-870d-05d81e93988d@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> It's not a GOAT list. It's a slam-final winning-percentage list.
>
> > Those numbers are well known, why post them pointlessly
>
> Because it's a) ontopic, unlike your stupid band lists, and b) closer to
> GOAT than any of your pathetic Lendl boosting crap.

The Bueatch is Back



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 18:16:34
From: bue
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"Raja" <zepfloyes@gmail.com > wrote:
>> Because it's a) ontopic, unlike your stupid band lists, and b) closer to
>> GOAT than any of your pathetic Lendl boosting crap.

> The Bueatch is Back

Your concentration & focus are gone.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:46:34
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 6:45=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:55=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 5:04=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > > > >> Federer 72%
> > > > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > > > >> Borg 69%
> > > > > >> Laver 65%
> > > > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > > > >> Becker 60%
> > > > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > > > >> Connors 53%
> > > > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> > > > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> > > He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>
> > My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
> > calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
> > guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %.
> > She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
> because it could rate a player
> who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
> over someone who won many more
> Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>
> But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
> winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
> recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
> thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.

If he played in Sampras era it would have been probably 17-2


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 16:45:16
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 6:55=A0pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 5:04=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > > >> Federer 72%
> > > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > > >> Borg 69%
> > > > >> Laver 65%
> > > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > > >> Becker 60%
> > > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > > >> Connors 53%
> > > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> > > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> > He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>
> My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
> calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
> guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %.
> She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
because it could rate a player
who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
over someone who won many more
Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.

But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:24:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:55 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 17, 4:47 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 3:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Sampras 78%
>>>>>>> Nadal 75%
>>>>>>> Federer 72%
>>>>>>> Newcombe 70%
>>>>>>> Borg 69%
>>>>>>> Laver 65%
>>>>>>> McEnroe 64%
>>>>>>> Wilander 64%
>>>>>>> Becker 60%
>>>>>>> Edberg 55%
>>>>>>> Agassi 53%
>>>>>>> Connors 53%
>>>>>>> Lendl 42%
>>>>> Dreadful slam-final record.
>>>>>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever.
>>>>> No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>>>> He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>>> He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>> My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
>> calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
>> guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %.
>> She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
> because it could rate a player
> who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
> over someone who won many more
> Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>
> But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
> winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
> recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
> thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.


It's very telling that Sampras won the most slams in history & also has
the best success rate - amazing he could keep it up.



   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 01:49:50
From: john
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499be1cc$0$672$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 6:55 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Feb 17, 4:47 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 3:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sampras 78%
>>>>>>>> Nadal 75%
>>>>>>>> Federer 72%
>>>>>>>> Newcombe 70%
>>>>>>>> Borg 69%
>>>>>>>> Laver 65%
>>>>>>>> McEnroe 64%
>>>>>>>> Wilander 64%
>>>>>>>> Becker 60%
>>>>>>>> Edberg 55%
>>>>>>>> Agassi 53%
>>>>>>>> Connors 53%
>>>>>>>> Lendl 42%
>>>>>> Dreadful slam-final record.
>>>>>>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever.
>>>>>> No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>>>>> He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>>>> He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>>> My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
>>> calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
>>> guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %.
>>> She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
>> because it could rate a player
>> who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
>> over someone who won many more
>> Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>>
>> But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
>> winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
>> recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
>> thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.
>
>
> It's very telling that Sampras won the most slams in history & also has
> the best success rate - amazing he could keep it up.
>

Yes, of course he can keep it up and facing Martin and Pioline type
certainly help a lot.
Lendl in contrast had to play Edberg, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and
Connors in
the finals.




    
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:19:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:499be1cc$0$672$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 6:55 pm, Raja <zepflo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 5:04 pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 17, 4:47 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 17, 3:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sampras 78%
>>>>>>>>> Nadal 75%
>>>>>>>>> Federer 72%
>>>>>>>>> Newcombe 70%
>>>>>>>>> Borg 69%
>>>>>>>>> Laver 65%
>>>>>>>>> McEnroe 64%
>>>>>>>>> Wilander 64%
>>>>>>>>> Becker 60%
>>>>>>>>> Edberg 55%
>>>>>>>>> Agassi 53%
>>>>>>>>> Connors 53%
>>>>>>>>> Lendl 42%
>>>>>>> Dreadful slam-final record.
>>>>>>>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>>>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever.
>>>>>>> No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>>>>>> He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>>>>> He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.
>>>> My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
>>>> calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
>>>> guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %.
>>>> She also has won 5 slams.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Yes, clearly such a formula is not a good way to determine goat
>>> because it could rate a player
>>> who won a bunch of Slams early and then never made another Slam final
>>> over someone who won many more
>>> Slams with some losses in finals thrown in.
>>>
>>> But it's a very telling stat for Lendl. If he coulda had Pete's
>>> winning % in Slam finals, he'd have 14/15 Slams and be universally
>>> recognized as one of the very greatest of all time. With a few Wimbys
>>> thrown in, his record would be bulletproof.
>>
>> It's very telling that Sampras won the most slams in history & also has
>> the best success rate - amazing he could keep it up.
>>
>
> Yes, of course he can keep it up and facing Martin and Pioline type
> certainly help a lot.
> Lendl in contrast had to play Edberg, Becker, Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and
> Connors in
> the finals.
>
>


What about the Pernfors/Mecir types he actually won his slams against?
No comment?



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 15:58:22
From: Silence, Fedfucker!
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 8:45=A0pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:01=A0pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sampras =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A078%
> > Nadal =A0 =A0 =A075%
> > Federer =A0 =A072%
> > Newcombe =A0 70%
> > Borg =A0 =A0 =A0 69%
> > Laver =A0 =A0 =A065%
> > McEnroe =A0 =A064%
> > Wilander =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 64%
> > Becker =A0 =A0 60%
> > Edberg =A0 =A0 55%
> > Agassi =A0 =A0 53%
> > Connors =A0 =A053%
> > Lendl =A0 =A0 =A042%
>
> > Close to GOAT list !
>
> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> is Gauston Gaudio.

Actually Stich doesn't have a 100% record, as he lost in two finals.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:23:16
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
Silence, Fedfucker! wrote:
> On Feb 17, 8:45 pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sampras 78%
>>> Nadal 75%
>>> Federer 72%
>>> Newcombe 70%
>>> Borg 69%
>>> Laver 65%
>>> McEnroe 64%
>>> Wilander 64%
>>> Becker 60%
>>> Edberg 55%
>>> Agassi 53%
>>> Connors 53%
>>> Lendl 42%
>>> Close to GOAT list !
>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
>> is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> Actually Stich doesn't have a 100% record, as he lost in two finals.


He's actually even lower than Lendl - oops.



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 15:55:46
From: Raja
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 5:04=A0pm, jasoncatlin1...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > >> Federer 72%
> > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > >> Borg 69%
> > > >> Laver 65%
> > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > >> Becker 60%
> > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > >> Connors 53%
> > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.

My tennis lists (havent made one for long) are based on complex
calculations. Not simplistic and shallow as a slam final record. I
guess Serena Williams is > Steffi because she has a better slam win %.
She also has won 5 slams.


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:03:03
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 3:01=A0pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Sampras =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A078%
> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A075%
> Federer =A0 =A072%
> Newcombe =A0 70%
> Borg =A0 =A0 =A0 69%
> Laver =A0 =A0 =A065%
> McEnroe =A0 =A064%
> Wilander =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 64%
> Becker =A0 =A0 60%
> Edberg =A0 =A0 55%
> Agassi =A0 =A0 53%
> Connors =A0 =A053%
> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A042%
>
> Close to GOAT list !

Sampras is clearly the GOAT.....


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:13:43
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
Arancione@selin.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sampras 78%
>> Nadal 75%
>> Federer 72%
>> Newcombe 70%
>> Borg 69%
>> Laver 65%
>> McEnroe 64%
>> Wilander 64%
>> Becker 60%
>> Edberg 55%
>> Agassi 53%
>> Connors 53%
>> Lendl 42%
>>
>> Close to GOAT list !
>
> Sampras is clearly the GOAT.....


Yes. What's amazing is the 4 slam finals he lost he shoulda won.



   
Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:04:06
From: john
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499bdf58$0$644$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Arancione@selin.com wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 3:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Sampras 78%
>>> Nadal 75%
>>> Federer 72%
>>> Newcombe 70%
>>> Borg 69%
>>> Laver 65%
>>> McEnroe 64%
>>> Wilander 64%
>>> Becker 60%
>>> Edberg 55%
>>> Agassi 53%
>>> Connors 53%
>>> Lendl 42%
>>>
>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>
>> Sampras is clearly the GOAT.....
>
>
> Yes. What's amazing is the 4 slam finals he lost he shoulda won.

When did shoulda or coulda coming into analysis, if they do Federer coulda
won AO in 2005 and Wimbledon last year
and AO this year in the world of shoulda and woulda. Of course coulda and
shoulda is the only way you know how to
express your biased opinion
>




    
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:24:47
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
john wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:499bdf58$0$644$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Arancione@selin.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 3:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Sampras 78%
>>>> Nadal 75%
>>>> Federer 72%
>>>> Newcombe 70%
>>>> Borg 69%
>>>> Laver 65%
>>>> McEnroe 64%
>>>> Wilander 64%
>>>> Becker 60%
>>>> Edberg 55%
>>>> Agassi 53%
>>>> Connors 53%
>>>> Lendl 42%
>>>>
>>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>> Sampras is clearly the GOAT.....
>>
>> Yes. What's amazing is the 4 slam finals he lost he shoulda won.
>
> When did shoulda or coulda coming into analysis, if they do Federer coulda
> won AO in 2005 and Wimbledon last year
> and AO this year in the world of shoulda and woulda. Of course coulda and
> shoulda is the only way you know how to
> express your biased opinion
>
>



I'm biased towards facts & quality - shoot me.



     
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:05:23
From: john
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499d0941$0$678$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:499bdf58$0$644$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> Arancione@selin.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 17, 3:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sampras 78%
>>>>> Nadal 75%
>>>>> Federer 72%
>>>>> Newcombe 70%
>>>>> Borg 69%
>>>>> Laver 65%
>>>>> McEnroe 64%
>>>>> Wilander 64%
>>>>> Becker 60%
>>>>> Edberg 55%
>>>>> Agassi 53%
>>>>> Connors 53%
>>>>> Lendl 42%
>>>>>
>>>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>>> Sampras is clearly the GOAT.....
>>>
>>> Yes. What's amazing is the 4 slam finals he lost he shoulda won.
>>
>> When did shoulda or coulda coming into analysis, if they do Federer
>> coulda won AO in 2005 and Wimbledon last year
>> and AO this year in the world of shoulda and woulda. Of course coulda
>> and shoulda is the only way you know how to
>> express your biased opinion
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I'm biased towards facts & quality - shoot me.

The fact is he lost those matches and no amount of bias from you will change
fact. Accepting fucker.
>




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:55:56
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 2:51=A0pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> > is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS titl=
es.

Why 5, why not 14?


  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 22:03:43
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT.
>>> So is Gauston Gaudio.
>>
>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
>> titles.
>
> Why 5, why not 14?


Why do you take 5-year span as a something "important" for dominance, and
not 14 years?




  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 20:59:58
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

On 17-Feb-2009, zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> > > is Gauston Gaudio.
> >
> > But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
> > titles.
>
> Why 5, why not 14?

I don't know, you'll have to ask him.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 08:35:58
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT.
>>> So is Gauston Gaudio.
>>
>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
>> titles.
>
> Why 5, why not 14?

A list of one then? Some list.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:45:05
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 2:01=A0pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Sampras =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A078%
> Nadal =A0 =A0 =A075%
> Federer =A0 =A072%
> Newcombe =A0 70%
> Borg =A0 =A0 =A0 69%
> Laver =A0 =A0 =A065%
> McEnroe =A0 =A064%
> Wilander =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 64%
> Becker =A0 =A0 60%
> Edberg =A0 =A0 55%
> Agassi =A0 =A0 53%
> Connors =A0 =A053%
> Lendl =A0 =A0 =A042%
>
> Close to GOAT list !

The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
is Gauston Gaudio.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 20:02:09
From: john
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

<zepfloyes@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:59ab9ade-9bcf-4be1-b45d-f7612af9aa3d@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Sampras 78%
> Nadal 75%
> Federer 72%
> Newcombe 70%
> Borg 69%
> Laver 65%
> McEnroe 64%
> Wilander 64%
> Becker 60%
> Edberg 55%
> Agassi 53%
> Connors 53%
> Lendl 42%
>
> Close to GOAT list !

The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
is Gauston Gaudio.

Stich did not have 100% record, he lost 94 USO final to Agassi so he had 50%
record.
Lendl's record could have been worse if Edberg was not injured in 90 AO.




   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 10:30:04
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499bce93$0$623$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> <zepfloyes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:59ab9ade-9bcf-4be1-b45d-f7612af9aa3d@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sampras 78%
>> Nadal 75%
>> Federer 72%
>> Newcombe 70%
>> Borg 69%
>> Laver 65%
>> McEnroe 64%
>> Wilander 64%
>> Becker 60%
>> Edberg 55%
>> Agassi 53%
>> Connors 53%
>> Lendl 42%
>>
>> Close to GOAT list !
>
> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> Stich did not have 100% record, he lost 94 USO final to Agassi so he had
> 50% record.
> Lendl's record could have been worse if Edberg was not injured in 90 AO.

Stich lost FO 96 as well.

Sampras is GOAT, good analysis btw.




    
Date: 19 Feb 2009 01:58:58
From: john
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr > wrote in message
news:gngkf5$9ip$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:499bce93$0$623$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>
>> <zepfloyes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:59ab9ade-9bcf-4be1-b45d-f7612af9aa3d@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Sampras 78%
>>> Nadal 75%
>>> Federer 72%
>>> Newcombe 70%
>>> Borg 69%
>>> Laver 65%
>>> McEnroe 64%
>>> Wilander 64%
>>> Becker 60%
>>> Edberg 55%
>>> Agassi 53%
>>> Connors 53%
>>> Lendl 42%
>>>
>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>
>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
>> is Gauston Gaudio.
>>
>> Stich did not have 100% record, he lost 94 USO final to Agassi so he had
>> 50% record.
>> Lendl's record could have been worse if Edberg was not injured in 90 AO.
>
> Stich lost FO 96 as well.
>
> Sampras is GOAT, good analysis btw.

Sampras is Goat. Well the guy never reached a single FO final so he is
essentially a grass court and
hard court player and put that into context if Federer is as good as Sampras
on clay his slam percentage
will be very scary he lost just 2 finals on grass and hard court while
winning 13 and that is 86%.
>
>




     
Date: 19 Feb 2009 18:23:09
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
john wrote:
> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
> news:gngkf5$9ip$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:499bce93$0$623$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>> <zepfloyes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:59ab9ade-9bcf-4be1-b45d-f7612af9aa3d@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Sampras 78%
>>>> Nadal 75%
>>>> Federer 72%
>>>> Newcombe 70%
>>>> Borg 69%
>>>> Laver 65%
>>>> McEnroe 64%
>>>> Wilander 64%
>>>> Becker 60%
>>>> Edberg 55%
>>>> Agassi 53%
>>>> Connors 53%
>>>> Lendl 42%
>>>>
>>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
>>> is Gauston Gaudio.
>>>
>>> Stich did not have 100% record, he lost 94 USO final to Agassi so he had
>>> 50% record.
>>> Lendl's record could have been worse if Edberg was not injured in 90 AO.
>> Stich lost FO 96 as well.
>>
>> Sampras is GOAT, good analysis btw.
>
> Sampras is Goat. Well the guy never reached a single FO final so he is
> essentially a grass court and
> hard court player


...who happened to win Italian Open (beyond Federer's abilities) & DC
final on clay, as well as beating 7 FO champs on clay.


> and put that into context if Federer is as good as Sampras
> on clay his slam percentage
> will be very scary he lost just 2 finals on grass and hard court while
> winning 13 and that is 86%.
>>


The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam
finals makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown
era. The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa.
Did you see Sampras losing more than 1 slam final to a guy? He
wouldn't allow it as he'd always come back strong looking for revenge.





      
Date: 20 Feb 2009 00:04:28
From: john
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:499d08df$0$678$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:
>> "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
>> news:gngkf5$9ip$1@ss408.t-com.hr...
>>> "john" <jliang@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:499bce93$0$623$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>>>> <zepfloyes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:59ab9ade-9bcf-4be1-b45d-f7612af9aa3d@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sampras 78%
>>>>> Nadal 75%
>>>>> Federer 72%
>>>>> Newcombe 70%
>>>>> Borg 69%
>>>>> Laver 65%
>>>>> McEnroe 64%
>>>>> Wilander 64%
>>>>> Becker 60%
>>>>> Edberg 55%
>>>>> Agassi 53%
>>>>> Connors 53%
>>>>> Lendl 42%
>>>>>
>>>>> Close to GOAT list !
>>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
>>>> is Gauston Gaudio.
>>>>
>>>> Stich did not have 100% record, he lost 94 USO final to Agassi so he
>>>> had 50% record.
>>>> Lendl's record could have been worse if Edberg was not injured in 90
>>>> AO.
>>> Stich lost FO 96 as well.
>>>
>>> Sampras is GOAT, good analysis btw.
>>
>> Sampras is Goat. Well the guy never reached a single FO final so he is
>> essentially a grass court and
>> hard court player
>
>
> ...who happened to win Italian Open (beyond Federer's abilities) & DC
> final on clay, as well as beating 7 FO champs on clay.
>
>
>> and put that into context if Federer is as good as Sampras on clay his
>> slam percentage
>> will be very scary he lost just 2 finals on grass and hard court while
>> winning 13 and that is 86%.
>>>
>
>
> The fact he couldn't do it at a young age & is now losing all slam finals
> makes it look suspiciously lie he benefitted from a genuine clown era.
> The true goat would not by definition lose 5 slam finals to Rafa. Did you
> see Sampras losing more than 1 slam final to a guy? He wouldn't allow it
> as he'd always come back strong looking for revenge.

The fact is he won 13 out of 15 hard court and grass court slam he contested
and
on top he reach at least semi or better in all hard court and grass court
slam he
contest and that means he was more consistant than Sampras ever was.
Sampras
lost to clowns like Yzaga even at his peak and losing to some of the genuine
clowns
of Federer's generation ( you like to call them that) in Safin and Hewitt
underline he
was benefited hugely in his era when the best returner in that era Agassi
was not as
effective in returning Sampras' serve as the softcock return of Hewitt.
Sampras
was never good enough to get any FO final and he was well beaten by
journeymen
of his era in FO and the only thing is he did not get to play the same
journey men
twice or 3 times. Clown era seems to be your only excuse when it comes to
Federer
but he never lost a match to clowns and certainly not to clowns in class of
Scud or
Yzaga type in his era.
>
>
>




       
Date: 20 Feb 2009 16:30:40
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
john wrote:
> clowns
> of Federer's generation ( you like to call them that) in Safin and Hewitt
> underline he
> was benefited hugely in his era when the best returner in that era Agassi
> was not as
> effective in returning Sampras' serve as the softcock return of Hewitt.
> Sampras
> was never good enough to get any FO final and he was well beaten by
> journeymen
> of his era in FO and the only thing is he did not get to play the same
> journey men
> twice or 3 times. Clown era seems to be your only excuse when it comes to
> Federer
> but he never lost a match to clowns and certainly not to clowns in class of
> Scud or
> Yzaga type in his era.
>>
>>
>
>


There isn't an expert alive who suggests yzaga is > Sampras - equally
there would be almost none who suggest Fed > Rafa.



  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 20:51:46
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

On 17-Feb-2009, zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:

> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> is Gauston Gaudio.

But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS titles.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 07:51:31
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Sampras 78%
>> Nadal 75%
>> Federer 72%
>> Newcombe 70%
>> Borg 69%
>> Laver 65%
>> McEnroe 64%
>> Wilander 64%
>> Becker 60%
>> Edberg 55%
>> Agassi 53%
>> Connors 53%

>> Lendl 42%

Dreadful slam-final record.

>> Close to GOAT list !
>
> The most clueless analysis ever.

No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?

> Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.

Stich and Gaudio don't meet the minimum slam titles qualification.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 15:04:13
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 4:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Sampras 78%
> > >> Nadal 75%
> > >> Federer 72%
> > >> Newcombe 70%
> > >> Borg 69%
> > >> Laver 65%
> > >> McEnroe 64%
> > >> Wilander 64%
> > >> Becker 60%
> > >> Edberg 55%
> > >> Agassi 53%
> > >> Connors 53%
> > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...

He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 00:08:24
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

<jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1524fed0-3f5e-42cd-ac6d-f53a861afd53@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 4:47 pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:51 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Sampras 78%
> > >> Nadal 75%
> > >> Federer 72%
> > >> Newcombe 70%
> > >> Borg 69%
> > >> Laver 65%
> > >> McEnroe 64%
> > >> Wilander 64%
> > >> Becker 60%
> > >> Edberg 55%
> > >> Agassi 53%
> > >> Connors 53%
> > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...

>He enjoys lists that boost Lendl's stature.


That? You mean list where Lendl comes on top?
Piece of cake.


Lost GS fnals:

1. Lendl - 11




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 14:31:13
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 5:01=A0pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
> > > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> Sampras 78%
> > > >> Nadal 75%
> > > >> Federer 72%
> > > >> Newcombe 70%
> > > >> Borg 69%
> > > >> Laver 65%
> > > >> McEnroe 64%
> > > >> Wilander 64%
> > > >> Becker 60%
> > > >> Edberg 55%
> > > >> Agassi 53%
> > > >> Connors 53%
> > > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> > He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...
>
> Nope, I do not enjoy them. Prime evidence.. this thread.

Don't enjoy them? You are the undisputed king of them, you freak.

>
>
>
> > > > Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> > > Stich and Gaudio don't meet the minimum slam titles qualification.
>
> > Pity that you need to point that out, isn't it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> oh blunders... how clever of you? Excited about the next DVD release
> of American Idol?
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Do you think you will ever have kids, raj, or do you have too many
personal issues to seriously consider marriage and children? Maybe
you ought to get a family of dolls to haul around in your used merc
wagon?


 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 14:02:09
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 3:46=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> >> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is
> >>>>> GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> >>>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more
> >>>> GS titles.
>
> >>> Why 5, why not 14?
>
> >> A list of one then? Some list.
>
> > Ideally there should be only one GOAT right? I say the women's
> > criteria is as simple.. win all 4 slams 4 times each.
>
> It's not a GOAT list. It's a slam-final winning-percentage list.- Hide qu=
oted text -

Those numbers are well known, why post them pointlessly


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:21:56
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:46 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is
>>>>>>> GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.
>>>>>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more
>>>>>> GS titles.
>>>>> Why 5, why not 14?
>>>> A list of one then? Some list.
>>> Ideally there should be only one GOAT right? I say the women's
>>> criteria is as simple.. win all 4 slams 4 times each.
>> It's not a GOAT list. It's a slam-final winning-percentage list.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Those numbers are well known, why post them pointlessly


It tells us who the best dominators were in the biggest matches.
Perhaps you can post a tune-up dominator list & see if anyone responds?



  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 02:10:08
From: bue
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

<zepfloyes@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:abdd6795-d972-42ba-870d-05d81e93988d@v13g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>> It's not a GOAT list. It's a slam-final winning-percentage list.
>
> Those numbers are well known, why post them pointlessly

Because it's a) ontopic, unlike your stupid band lists, and b) closer to
GOAT than any of your pathetic Lendl boosting crap.




  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 09:12:23
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:46 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>>>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is
>>>>>>> GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.
>>
>>>>>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more
>>>>>> GS titles.
>>
>>>>> Why 5, why not 14?
>>
>>>> A list of one then? Some list.
>>
>>> Ideally there should be only one GOAT right? I say the women's
>>> criteria is as simple.. win all 4 slams 4 times each.
>>
>> It's not a GOAT list. It's a slam-final winning-percentage list.-
>> Hide quoted text -
>
> Those numbers are well known, why post them pointlessly

If I've seen them before I don't remember it.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 14:01:35
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 3:47=A0pm, blanders0...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Sampras 78%
> > >> Nadal 75%
> > >> Federer 72%
> > >> Newcombe 70%
> > >> Borg 69%
> > >> Laver 65%
> > >> McEnroe 64%
> > >> Wilander 64%
> > >> Becker 60%
> > >> Edberg 55%
> > >> Agassi 53%
> > >> Connors 53%
> > >> Lendl 42%
>
> > Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> > >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> > No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?
>
> He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...

Nope, I do not enjoy them. Prime evidence.. this thread.

>
>
>
> > > Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> > Stich and Gaudio don't meet the minimum slam titles qualification.
>
> Pity that you need to point that out, isn't it?- Hide quoted text -

oh blunders... how clever of you? Excited about the next DVD release
of American Idol?
>
> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:47:03
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 3:51=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Sampras 78%
> >> Nadal 75%
> >> Federer 72%
> >> Newcombe 70%
> >> Borg 69%
> >> Laver 65%
> >> McEnroe 64%
> >> Wilander 64%
> >> Becker 60%
> >> Edberg 55%
> >> Agassi 53%
> >> Connors 53%
> >> Lendl 42%
>
> Dreadful slam-final record.
>
> >> Close to GOAT list !
>
> > The most clueless analysis ever.
>
> No, it's a mildly interesting list. You love lists don't you?

He only enjoys inane, irrelevent and non-sensical lists...

>
> > Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> Stich and Gaudio don't meet the minimum slam titles qualification.

Pity that you need to point that out, isn't it?



 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:46:03
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 3:45=A0pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:01=A0pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sampras =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A078%
> > Nadal =A0 =A0 =A075%
> > Federer =A0 =A072%
> > Newcombe =A0 70%
> > Borg =A0 =A0 =A0 69%
> > Laver =A0 =A0 =A065%
> > McEnroe =A0 =A064%
> > Wilander =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 64%
> > Becker =A0 =A0 60%
> > Edberg =A0 =A0 55%
> > Agassi =A0 =A0 53%
> > Connors =A0 =A053%
> > Lendl =A0 =A0 =A042%
>
> > Close to GOAT list !
>
> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
> is Gauston Gaudio.

You're retarded..

Highest slam final winning % combined with most slam titles--that's
pretty nice.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:20:10
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
blanders0604@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:45 pm, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2:01 pm, "serve & volley" <d4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sampras 78%
>>> Nadal 75%
>>> Federer 72%
>>> Newcombe 70%
>>> Borg 69%
>>> Laver 65%
>>> McEnroe 64%
>>> Wilander 64%
>>> Becker 60%
>>> Edberg 55%
>>> Agassi 53%
>>> Connors 53%
>>> Lendl 42%
>>> Close to GOAT list !
>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT. So
>> is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> You're retarded..
>
> Highest slam final winning % combined with most slam titles--that's
> pretty nice.


Like I've always said Sampras is the best big match player ever. How
many great Wimbledon champs never lost a final? Even Laver lost 2 -
Borg, Mac & Federer also lost Wimbledon finals. The fact he reached an
incredible 7 finals & won them all makes a big statement. Raja's
'dominator' made 2 finals & never won a single set.

No point dismissing Wimbledon as unimportant when Lendl himself said
he'd swap his whole career for just 1 Wimbledon crown.





 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:39:05
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 3:35=A0pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT.
> >>> So is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> >> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
> >> titles.
>
> > Why 5, why not 14?
>
> A list of one then? Some list.

Ideally there should be only one GOAT right? I say the women's
criteria is as simple.. win all 4 slams 4 times each.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 08:46:54
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:35 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is
>>>>> GOAT. So is Gauston Gaudio.
>>
>>>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more
>>>> GS titles.
>>
>>> Why 5, why not 14?
>>
>> A list of one then? Some list.
>
> Ideally there should be only one GOAT right? I say the women's
> criteria is as simple.. win all 4 slams 4 times each.

It's not a GOAT list. It's a slam-final winning-percentage list.




 
Date: 17 Feb 2009 13:35:59
From:
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era
On Feb 17, 3:03=A0pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT.
> >>> So is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> >> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
> >> titles.
>
> > Why 5, why not 14?
>
> Why do you take 5-year span as a something "important" for dominance, and
> not 14 years?

I never took anything like that. Going by dominance, Borg/Lendl
dominated much more than Sampras.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:16:27
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
zepfloyes@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:03 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT.
>>>>> So is Gauston Gaudio.
>>>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
>>>> titles.
>>> Why 5, why not 14?
>> Why do you take 5-year span as a something "important" for dominance, and
>> not 14 years?
>
> I never took anything like that. Going by dominance, Borg/Lendl
> dominated much more than Sampras.


Dominance is not measured by tune-up performance rather slams won.
Lendl has the lowest % of winning slam finals in the history of tennis
(for guys who won > 5 slams). Far from being dominant he is the bottom
marker all future greats will be measured against. I'm certain all
future greats will be able to say 'Well at least I had better % in slam
finals than Lendl'.


  
Date: 18 Feb 2009 02:07:28
From: bue
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

<zepfloyes@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:90c5d1a9-8ac7-437c-943f-19fc01d21160@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> > Why 5, why not 14?
>
>> Why do you take 5-year span as a something "important" for dominance, and
>> not 14 years?

> I never took anything like that. Going by dominance, Borg/Lendl
> dominated much more than Sampras.

Not in 14-year span :)




  
Date: 17 Feb 2009 23:45:03
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open Era with at least 5 GS wins

<zepfloyes@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:90c5d1a9-8ac7-437c-943f-19fc01d21160@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 17, 3:03 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr > wrote:
> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT.
> >>> So is Gauston Gaudio.
>
> >> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
> >> titles.
>
> > Why 5, why not 14?
>
> Why do you take 5-year span as a something "important" for dominance, and
> not 14 years?

>I never took anything like that. Going by dominance, >Borg/Lendl
>dominated much more than Sampras.


lol, please don't stop.




   
Date: 18 Feb 2009 21:28:23
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Winning percentage in GS finals from male players in the Open
*skriptis wrote:
> <zepfloyes@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:90c5d1a9-8ac7-437c-943f-19fc01d21160@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 3:03 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Feb 17, 2:51 pm, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 17-Feb-2009, zepflo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> The most clueless analysis ever. Stich has 100% record. He is GOAT.
>>>>> So is Gauston Gaudio.
>>>> But he qualified it by only including those who had won 5 or more GS
>>>> titles.
>>> Why 5, why not 14?
>> Why do you take 5-year span as a something "important" for dominance, and
>> not 14 years?
>
>> I never took anything like that. Going by dominance, >Borg/Lendl
>> dominated much more than Sampras.
>
>
> lol, please don't stop.
>
>


I think he wanted to include Stich (33%) as he's the only guy with a
lower % than Lendl.