v2 G.O.A.T Round 1 Group 8

Yesterday’s group was another two horse race with could have gone either way, the voting was split between early candidates to win the entire competition footballing icon Pele and arguably the best pound for pound boxer of all time Sugar Ray Robinson. Pele eventually finished in first place with 38 votes and Robinson qualified in second place with 35 votes, leaving Michael Schumacher and Stephen Hendry exiting the tournament at the first attempt.

Today’s group sees Tennis, Track and Field, golf and Snooker compete for your votes.

We have the two participants championed today with articles written by forum members, so please feel free to submit your own argument below for the one not championed.

Please vote for the competitor you believe has achieved the most in sport and should progress into the next round.

Please leave a comment as to why you voted

Roger Federer- Tennis- Championed by emancipator

2001, Wimbledon Centre Court; defending and seven time Wimbledon champion 'Pistol' Pete Sampras, the man who had reigned at the top of men's tennis for close to a decade and considered by many to be unbeatable on this hallowed turf is at crisis point. At two sets all, 5-6 and 15-40 down in the deciding set, the ruthlessly efficient Sampras is facing match point.

It had been five years since anyone had managed to beat him in this tournament. His opponent a relatively unknown challenger in the form of Swiss teenager, 19 year old Roger Federer, is considered to be a prodigious but erratic talent. He seems to have all the shots but doesn't know quite how to put them together. His temperament has also been questionable. Today, however, things appear to be different. For nearly four hours the two protagonists have battled. To the surprise of the enthralled on lookers it was Federer who took the opening set. But Sampras hit back as any great champion is expected to do. The audience fully expected him to motor on and over power the youngster, except, as the match wore on, it appeared as if the Swiss was the one getting stronger, whilst Sampras appeared more and more uneasy. By the time the match score had reached two sets all, the tension had become palpable. The Centre Court crowd knew that there were no longer any favourites in this match; this would be a dog-fight, survival of the fittest - and the bravest; reputations would count for nothing.

On countless occasions throughout his career Sampras had bailed himself out of tight spots with his booming, swerving, pin-point accurate serve; the serve universally acclaimed as the greatest in history. He wipes sweat from his brow, places the ball against the racket, looks up, coils himself into the releasing position, then with a seamlessly fluid motion he serves a missile out wide to Federer's forehand and charges towards the net. Federer takes a step towards the ball and unleashes a forehand that whizzes past Sampras for a clean winner. He crumples to his knees in disbelief and celebration. A split-second of silence is followed by an eruption as the Centre Court crowd rise as one to salute a new King. The BBC commentator proclaims the birth of a new star. It is indeed the dawn of a new era.. The Federer era.

Looking back it was a poignant moment in sporting history. The one occasion on which the two greatest champions of the modern era were to play each other, and as fate would have it, on the court most beloved to either of them. It was a reminder of days gone by and a harbinger of those yet to come.

It would be another couple of years before Federer would really hit the heights, and what heights! 17 grand slams from 24 finals, including 7 Wimbledon titles. Over 300 weeks as the number one player in the world, including 237 consecutive weeks at the top spot. 6 World Tour Final victories from 8 finals. 23 consecutive grand slam semi-finals; 34 consecutive grand slam quarter finals (and counting); a run of 24 consecutive finals victories in all tournaments, 65 consecutive match wins on grass, 56 consecutive match wins on hardcourt, five consecutive Wimbledon and US Open titles, a run of 18 grand slam finals out of 19 grand slam tournaments played, 21 masters titles.. and on and on.. all of them records, many of them by a considerable distance. There are at least half a dozen Wikipedia articles dedicated to the career achievements and compiled statistics/records of Roger Federer. Peruse them at your own leisure - if you've got a few days to spare that is

But what makes Federer really stand out amongst the legends of tennis and indeed any sport is his unique game. Everything about his game is beautiful, everything is seemingly effortless. He glides around the court unhurried, with uncanny footwork and balletic grace. A sixth sense for being at the right place at the right time. He plays with perfect technique. Like an artist, Federer creates masterpieces; the court is his canvas. At heart, he is an attacking player who plays the game the right way; always looking to seize the initiative, to hit outright winners, to win spectacularly and brilliantly. He can hit every shot in the book. But he can also grind and play great defense. If it is so required he can switch to plan b, c, d, whatever it takes. In a sport dominated by super athletes, Federer at his peak was as fast and durable as they come. Modern tennis is played predominantly from the baseline (a stark contrast to the tennis of Sampras's heydey which was mainly serve and volley based, with the majority of points won at the net) and Roger Federer can play the baseline game as well as anyone. But he can do so much more. He can mix spins and slices, lobs and dropshots, powerful winners and delicate touch, from the back of the court or at the net. It is this unique fusion of power, skill and aesthetic grace, that has captured the imagination of millions of fans around the world. Federer doesn't just win, he wins with style.

When Federer established himself as the number one player in the world in late 2003 people were already starting to whisper about this potential phenomenon. He emerged from a group of fantastically talented youngsters: Safin, Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian, Roddick, Haas, to establish himself as THE man to beat. As the years rolled by he gathered steam, and the initial curiosity that follows the emergence of any great talent - the excitement of thinking about all the possibilites - was replaced by amazement then incredulity and finally awe. As Andre Agassi said, 'Federer was the guy who came and took the game light years ahead.' He looked like something from the future. The American media even dubbed him 'Darth Federer' (in reference to his super-natural gifts and black clothing) at the 2007 US Open. More than anything else, the Roger Federer phenomenon turned the sport of tennis, which had been suffering a slump in popularity following the years of serve dominated play, into one of the most popular spectator sports in the world. He was and remains to this day, although not to the same extent, a phenom. Or as David Foster Wallace wrote in the New York Times:

"Roger Federer is one of those rare, preternatural athletes who appear to be exempt, at least in part, from certain physical laws. Good analogues here include Michael Jordan, who could not only jump inhumanly high but actually hang there a beat or two longer than gravity allows, and Muhammad Ali, who really could “float” across the canvas and land two or three jabs in the clock-time required for one. There are probably a half-dozen other examples since 1960. And Federer is of this type — a type that one could call genius, or mutant, or avatar. He is never hurried or off-balance. The approaching ball hangs, for him, a split-second longer than it ought to. His movements are lithe rather than athletic. Like Ali, Jordan, Maradona, and Gretzky, he seems both less and more substantial than the men he faces. Particularly in the all-white that Wimbledon enjoys getting away with still requiring, he looks like what he may well (I think) be: a creature whose body is both flesh and, somehow, light." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (By the way - this article by Wallace entitled 'Roger Federer as a religious experience' is a great read)

Federer's style and success has allowed him to transcend the sport in a way that few sportsmen in history can match. He is a record four time winner of the prestigious Laureus Sportsman of the Year Award. In a recent poll conducted across 25 countries with 51,000 participants he was voted as the second most trusted person in the world after Nelson Mandela. During the Beijing Olympics opening ceremony, Federer received the loudest cheer of the night when he carried the Swiss flag into the stadium https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddojLWIjKK4 At the London Olympics Federer's pre-Olympic presser had more than 700 journalists, more than any other star at the games. He was mobbed by crowds during his recent tour of South America with political and sporting dignitaries (including Pele and Maradonna) feting him. He has the most impressive endorsement portfolio in all of sports including blue chip companies such as Nike, Mercedes-Benz (global ambassador), Wilson, Rolex, Credite Suisse, Gillette, Moet & Chandon etc.

But despite all the accolades Federer has remained a likeable, down to earth person. His fellow tennis professionals have voted him the winner of the annual Steffan Edberg Sportsmanship award a record eight times. He is the President of the ATP players council and in this capacity has campaigned for the benefit of all the players on the tour, including negotiating a fairer distribution of prize money for players who lose in the earlier rounds of the slams. The Roger Federer foundation is a charitable organisation with the stated mission of empowering children through education; it is involved in numerous projects throughout Africa.

It is incredible that with so many distractions (he's married with two young children to boot) Federer has still managed to stay at the top of such a global and competitive sport. As things stand he is the number 2 ranked player in the world and indeed was, just a few short months ago, the number one player in the world. Tennis has traditionally been a young man's sport but Roger Federer has redefined the parameters. I firmly believe that Federer is one of the outstanding candidates for the greatest sportsman of all time accolade. He fits all of the criteria: a sporting phenomenon, unmatched in his sport, an incredible record in a globally competitive sport which is both physical and skill-based, a global sporting icon who is one of the most popular sportsmen on the planet and a great role model, who plays hard but fair. But of course the Federer story is not over yet. He has declared his intention to play until the 2016 Olympic Games. There may yet be a few more pages to add to Wikipedia


Some quotes:

"[In the modern game], you're either a clay court specialist, a grass court specialist or a hard court specialist ... or you're Roger Federer" - Jimmy Connors

"He is the most naturally talented player I have ever seen in my life" - John McEnroe

"He moves like a whisper and executes like a wrecking ball" - Nick Bollettieri (legendary tennis coach)

"He is the most perfect machine I have ever seen playing tennis" - Diego Maradonna

"Federer is capable of playing shots that other players don't even think of" - Ivan Lendl

"We are witnessing history. This is the most dominant athlete on planet earth today" - Jim Courier (4 time grand slam champion)

"Federer is the best player in history - no other player has ever had so much quality" - Rafael Nadal

"Roger's got too many shots, too much talent in one body. It's hardly fair that one person can do all this—his backhands, his forehands, volleys, serving, his court position. The way he moves around the court, you feel like he's barely touching the ground. That's the sign of a great champion." - Rod Laver

"He's the best I've ever played against. There's nowhere to go. There's nothing to do except hit fairways, hit greens and make putts. Every shot has that sort of urgency on it. I've played a lot of them [other players], so many years; there's a safety zone, there's a place to get to, there's something to focus on, there's a way. Anything you try to do, he potentially has an answer for and it's just a function of when he starts pulling the triggers necessary to get you to change to that decision." - Andre Agassi

"He's a real person. He's not an enigma. Off the court he's not trying to be somebody. If you met him at McDonald's and you didn't know who he was, you would have no idea that he's one of the best athletes in the world" - Andy Roddick

"Today I was playing my best tennis, trying lots of different things, but nothing worked. When you're playing like that and he still comes up with all those great shots you really have to wonder if he's even from the same planet" - Novak Djokovic

emancipator

ps - For those of you who haven't seen the The Fed Express in action, the following video might give you some idea of what he's all about
http://vimeo.com/40765561

Tiger Woods- Golf- Championed by Adam D

"So far these GOAT debates have been fascinating reading. What sports are sports? How does a sportsman shine if they are part of a team? How can someone who is not athletically fit be considered a ""great"" sportsman? How can someone be considered the GOAT if they are not even the best in their sport?

Well all of these arguments could be levelled at Mr Woods to a certain extent, however, I will prove why all of these points in isolation do not matter to Tiger.

Tiger Woods is not just the greatest golfer of his generation, he is the greatest of all time. Whats that I hear you say? Jack Niklaus has won more?
Well for a start, he hasnt. Niklaus HAS won more Majors but not tournaments.

In fact, the person with the most tournament wins is Sam Snead who dominated from 1936 to 1965, clocking up 7 major wins. But I doubt he is going to grace this list anytime soon.

Lets get back to Niklaus vs Woods because lets face it, thats the golfing GOAT debate that will spring up. Now I like Niklaus and I like Woods, but which is better? There is only one way to find out....actually, its a matter of opinion and for me the reason why Woods outshines the Niklaus era is down to the talent pool around them.

Let me talk about that for a second. In Niklaus' era, we had the big names and historical superstars of the sport. In Woods era, we have Major winners such as Keegan Bradley and Zach Johnson. Whats my point you may ask as this is surely a selling point for Jack?

My point is that in the 60,70 and 80s, golf was dominated by a group of great players in a smaller pool. And that was down to the social class aspect of the sport. Fewer people played, and skill was the biggest factor in winning a tournament. Today, everyone is welcomed onto the many, many more courses around the world. And due to big hitting taking precedent over course management, the field has become much more even and full of depth.

Tigers dominance in a more scientific era of golf is that much more impressive. And its also the reason why he should be voted above the likes of Federer and Phil Taylor and Ronnie O'Sullivan. Tiger doesnt have to beat a single opponent on each day. He has won these tournaments by beating EVERY player over 4 days.

This is not a case of playing better than this rounds opponent but a case of playing better than every person in the competition. That is why his achievements should be considered above the other individual sports on this list.

So what has Tiger achieved?

At age 2, he appeared on TV putting against Bob Hope! At age three, he shot a 48 over nine holes over the Cypress Navy course. Before turning seven, Tiger won the Under Age 10 section of the Drive, Pitch, and Putt competition, held at the Navy Golf Course in Cypress, California.

In 1984 at the age of eight, he won the 9–10 boys' event, the youngest age group available, at the Junior World Golf Championships. He first broke 80 at age eight. He went on to win the Junior World Championships six times, including four consecutive wins from 1988 to 1991.

And THEN he went to college!

By the time he turned Pro in 1996, he had already amassed dozens of junior titles.

I am going to sum up his career in a very brief manner as the stats talk for themselves.

Woods has won 74 official PGA Tour events including 14 majors. He is 14–1 when going into the final round of a major with at least a share of the lead. He has been heralded as ""the greatest closer in history"" by multiple golf experts. He owns the lowest career scoring average and the most career earnings of any player in PGA Tour history.

He has spent the most consecutive and cumulative weeks atop the world rankings. He is one of five players (along with Gene Sarazen,Ben Hogan, Gary Player, and Jack Nicklaus) to have won all four professional major championships in his career, known as the Career Grand Slam, and was the youngest to do so. Woods is the only player to have won all four professional major championships in a row, accomplishing the feat in the 2000–2001 seasons.


On top of this he has another 38 European Tour wins and other worldwide tournaments.

Simply put, no one in the modern era has dominated the sport like Tiger. He has been so dominant that he won the US Open in 2008 on one leg (He was recovering from Knee surgery before the tournament and had to have major knee surgery afterwards).

Outside of his sporting achievements it has to be noted that Tiger Woods has transcended just playing the game. He has a successful video game franchise named after him - when was the last time anyone played Roger Federers Tennis 2013 or Jerry Rice American Football 2013?

The final thing I want to touch upon is his infidelity. Some may discount him for this very reason but that is ludicrous. However, we must remember that Tiger hasnt commited a crime. He hasnt taken drugs to cheat at his sport. He hasnt dodged a military draft or served jail time for serious crimes. He cheated on his wife (albeit on numerous occasions) which might make him less of a man but not a sporting great.

Tiger deserves to be the v2 GOAT.

Steve Davis OBE - Championed by VTR

A great sportsperson can be defined in a number of ways. We could have the great champion, someone who dominated their sport for a period. Or someone that had an incredibly long career at the top. Even someone who fundamentally changed the way their sport was played. It is certainly a rare specimen that can be classified as two let alone all three of these.

Growing up in the 80’s there was one name above all others that was synonymous with Snooker: Steve Davis. There were popular characters such as Alex Higgins and Jimmy White but only one great champion. Often mocked for being boring, Davis did his talking on the snooker table, taking apart opponents in a period of domination only approached since by Stephen Hendry.

I will come on to his record but let’s start with impact. Why was Davis considered boring? I think simply because he was the first player to really take a fully professional approach to snooker and recognise it for what it was: a growing sport where riches could be made. Is practicing so hard you leave nothing to chance really boring? Refusing to drink during matches boring? Playing with intensity? I would say not – and almost all players that have followed have realised that being an endearing character does not pay the bills and deliver silverware, it is only winning that will do that. Davis’ approach drastically improved the standard of the game, paving the way for the incredible level of play achieved by future greats such as Hendry, O’Sullivan and John Higgins.

So what of that record? Davis won 6 out of the 10 World Championships in the 1980’s. Add to that numerous other titles including several victories in The Masters and UK Championship and you can only be awestruck by his dominance and consistency. Even in rare defeat, Davis will be remembered. The 1985 final, watched by a UK TV audience of almost 20 million people in a beyond midnight finish went to the final black. Taylor won, Davis was gracious in defeat and certainly played his part in the greatest match ever. In what is likely to be his final tally, Davis has reached 41 ranking finals, winning 28 titles.

Snooker is not a physical pursuit but I would argue it is a young man’s game. Stephen Hendry, Davis’s main contender for the snooker GOAT won his last world title aged 30. A sport based on such precision naturally favours the undiminished motor skills of the younger player. Davis is unique in his longevity, and has only relatively recently showed signs of a terminal decline. Of course his period of domination is long over, but Davis has remained competitive well past the age of 45. Aged 48 Davis was still good enough to reach the UK Championship final in 2005 and had a season in the all-important Top 16 at the age of 50. He has the ability to qualify for major events to this day; the competitive instinct refuses to be extinguished. One of his greatest coups was in 2010 when he beat defending champion John Higgins to progress to the World Championship Quarter Finals. A huge shock no doubt but in some ways not that surprising: every player would have known that on his day this elder statesman still had the game to defeat them.

And finally back to that personality: Davis has a fantastic dry wit, makes time for the fans and provides analysis and commentary of the highest quality. The often vile British media with their hypocritical dual delight-and-disgust at sportspeople that make a mess of their lives will chip away at characters like Davis with the boring tag as a mark of their own disappointment. There’s no story to tell outside of his sporting excellence, Davis is a true class act on and off the baize.

The pioneer, the great champion, the evergreen. Davis is certainly all three.

A very interesting group. There was a thing on Sky Sports about Gebreselassie and I grew a new appreciation of the man. Hope someone who follows him can do a little summary for the man.

Kudos to both emanci and Adam. Very good write ups

So Woods is a GOAT because people play a computer game named after him?


I don't like the smug, self loving, if he was made of chocolate he'd eat himself Federer, but he is without doubt the GOAT of this group.

Easy to see why the championer of Woods thinks he's a goat when he doesn't even know how to spell the great Jack's surname correctly

Another top group.

The two obvious stand out's are Tiger and Federer.

Growing up in the 80's meant a few thing's. One being watching Steve Davis win or compete in the world Snooker final but I cannot see past the mentioned two.

Tiger wins it for me, as he was the reason I started watching and playing the game. Federer for all his brilliance hasn't made we want to watch it any more indeed play it, not that there's anywhere to play.

I've never understood this crock that there are no tennis courts around, there are thousands and virtually every village has them, I can scarcely think of a more accessible and cheap sport.

super_realist wrote:I've never understood this crock that there are no tennis courts around, there are thousands and virtually every village has them, I can scarcely think of a more accessible and cheap sport.

There are some in my old village but you had to be a member to play on them.

Yeah, which costs buttons. Do people actually expect sports facilities to be free?

There are many courts down my neck of the woods and more importantly they are free to play on

super_realist wrote:I've never understood this crock that there are no tennis courts around, there are thousands and virtually every village has them, I can scarcely think of a more accessible and cheap sport.

I live in Rotherham which is about as far from middle class or a hotbed of tennis activity as you could hope to find and I know of at least one set of courts that are available for the public

super_realist wrote:Yeah, which costs buttons. Do people actually expect sports facilities to be free?

I wouldn't pay to play Tennis

We played Football and American Football in the winter and Cricket in the summer. All you need is some grass.

I know next to nothing about snooker, golf, tennis or athletics, but that really was a terrific write up, emancipator. I would normally fall asleep at the very sight of a tennis ball, but that has swayed me enough to vote for the chap. Great work.

Tiger Woods has to be the miserable looking multi-millionaire in history so I can't bring myself to vote for him.

Stella wrote:

super_realist wrote:Yeah, which costs buttons. Do people actually expect sports facilities to be free?

I wouldn't pay to play Tennis

We played Football and American Football in the winter and Cricket in the summer. All you need is some grass.

Far cry from small boys in the park, jumpers for goalposts. Rush goalie. Two at the back, three in the middle, four up front, one's gone home for his tea. Beans on toast? Possibly, don't quote me on that. Marvellous

It's between Federer and David for me - neither Woods nor Gebreselassie are in the top three GOATs in their own sports, so they're immediately discounted in my book.

Davis was an exceptional player, but Hendry was better, and I think O'Sullivan is/was.

I think only Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras or Martina Navratilova can hold a candle to Federer - and I think he's a better player than all three. So he's won my vote.

I've gone for Federer. Along with Andres Iniesta, he's probably responsible for the vast majority of eyegasm's I've had from watching sport over the last decade or so and just appears to be effortlessly brilliant.

Arguably the best grass court player of all time, probably the best hard court player of all time, certainly the best indoor player of all time and here's the controversial one - probably in the top 3-5 clay court players of all time (if not for the incredible Nadal, he would have won multiple French Open titles).

It's hard to ignore Tiger's success and dominance of his sport but I can't say I've ever been inspired by him. I know he's hit some incredible shots over the years but, when he was at his best, I found his style to be slightly boring (I'm thinking of that Open win where he didn't hit a single driver - it made sense and it was succesful but where's the drama - where's the romance?). Added to that, he's not surpassed Nicklaus as the greatest in his sport and I think there's a place for only one golfer in the latter stages of this process.

Best line from the Charlie Sheen roast:

"Charlie Sheen maintains that he has tiger blood. However, given the number of supermodels he's banged, I think what he actually meant was 'Tiger Wood's blood' ".

Of these, Federer for me. Very tight indeed between him and Woods, but I have to rate Nicklaus higher than Woods for a couple of reasons. Briefly, Jack not only won 18 Majors over a quarter of a century, but also was the runner-up in as many more, a quite unparalleled record of consistency. Secondly, he didn't merely do so by crushing the opposition from the front; Nicklaus recovered seemingly lost causes on the final day in a way which Woods has never managed. I'm always amused when journalists speak of the "expected Tiger charge" on the final day of a major with Woods masses of strokes behind. It has never happened. Never. Nicklaus could do it. Hell, Greg Norman could do it at times. Not Tiger, who either crushes people from the get-go or desn't do so at all.

Finally, I would have to disagree respectfully about levels of competition. Jack emerged as the top dog over more than two decades against men of the calibre of Palmer, Player, Casper, Weiskopf, Miller, Irwin, Jacklin, Trevino and Watson playing at their peaks. Among that little lot, you have three or four other candidates for an all-time top 10. And Tiger? He's seen off the last knockings of Faldo and Norman, together with Els, Duval, Singh, Montgomerie and Mickelson as probably the best of his consistent opposition. I honestly don't put that in the same class as Jack's day in day out foes.

Gebrselassie is an engaging genius,but was he a greater all-round runner than Nurmi, Zatopek, Bikila or Kuts? Even in more recent times, was he more dominant than his compatriot Bekele? About Davis we can say the same, with bells on, as we did of Hendry yesterday. I think that either Federer or Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time. The one doubt in Federer's case is the head to head record against his contemporary Nadal, which is obviously greatly in the Spaniard's favour. However, Nadal by common consent is the finest clay courter ever, a surface that has somewhat skewed the great rivalry in his favour. Not sure I'd vote for Fed over a Merckx or a Robinson, but I'm happy enough to do so here.

Federer gets this one over Woods.
Woods is, possibly, a top 10 OAT golfer. Federer is top 3, probably no.1 in tennis.

Federer for me , though I don't really buy the top 3-5 greatest clay courter part.

Agreed Diggers, there isn't a chance that Federer is a top 3-5 greatest clay courter.

I can think of at least 10 ahead of him

Federer doesn't need conjecture to illustrate his greatness , sticking to the facts rather than the maybes is plenty good enough IMO.

Don't know about 10, super realist, but there are more than three or four, I agree. Definites of the Open era to be placed ahead of Fed on clay would include Borg, Vilas, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Courier and Nadal, for me. You could also construct a case for Bruguera and Muster, I suppose, although I wouldn't. Stretching things to include anyone else; I'd certainly have Fed above Panatta, Rosewall, Gimeno, Agassi and Chang, for example.

Carlos Moya? Loads of clay titles.

Nadal certainly the best and I'd have Borg in second spot. After that, I think it's a pretty close group of players down to about 7 or 8 and Federer is one of them. Federer has had the misfortune to be around at the same time as Nadal and but for him would have won multiple French Open titles as welll as numerous other clay court titles. Take Nadal away, and Federer would be among a group of players being discussed as the best clay courter of all time.

I'm fairly sure I heard Courier rate Federer as the third best clay courter. It may well have been another ex-player but certainly it was a respected clay courter. It surprised me at the time but when I think about it, it's not such a huge stretch.

Courier better Clay player than Federer? Not sure I buy that argument.

Not basing it on anything but in the open era only two men have made the final of the FO more than Federer, Nadal and Borg.

Guga, legend.

Moya? You can't be serious. 16 clay court titles to ten, I agree, but that's where Carlos chose to play most of his tournaments. You never saw Fed chasing off to Acapulco, Costa do Sauipe, Umag or other vastly important tournaments to rack up a victory.

In the clay court tournaments that matter, Carlos has one French Open title, plus two clay court Masters titles and one other Masters Final appearance. By my reckoning, Roger has one French Open title and four other finals appearances, six Masters victories on clay and seven other appearances in Masters Finals. Just three of Roger's ten clay court tournament wins have therefore been of minimal significance (Munich, Gstaad and Estoril). For ten years, Roger hasn't played on clay beyond the traditional April-first week of June cycle and has still racked up a record that's demonstrably superior to Moya's. Without the great Nadal to impede him, Roger's clay court stats would be comparable with Borg's.

Courier should probably be in the "arguable" category, alongside Bruguera and Muster, legendkillar, I agree on reflection. With the rest, I'm content.

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I know next to nothing about snooker, golf, tennis or athletics, but that really was a terrific write up, emancipator. I would normally fall asleep at the very sight of a tennis ball, but that has swayed me enough to vote for the chap. Great work.

Tiger Woods has to be the miserable looking multi-millionaire in history so I can't bring myself to vote for him.

Thanks Tino

Discount Davies immediately, as he is probably only the 2nd or 3rd best snooker player of the modern era - a great example though of making the most of what ability you have.

Gebreselassie - a fantastic distance runner, but as others have questioned, how does he compare with Zatopek (discussed earlier) and Bekele? To me, these three are on about the same level, and so I can't put forward HG as a GOAT candidate.

Woods - Perhaps the most dominant golfer ever over a spell of about 8 years, but is he really the golfing GOAT ahead of Nicklaus? The pure statistics say not, and as others have highlighted, while Woods is a fantastic winner from the front, he is not good at winning by a charge through the field on the last day. Also, while the difference in number of major wins between Nicklaus and Woods is quite small, the number of high placings is vast - admittedly, Woods is still close enough to the top of the game and young enough to enhance his legacy, but as it stands I think Jack's career still stands out as better.

Oh, and Woods is generally considered not a very nice man, with some rather poor examples of both on-course behaviour and dealings with the media (ignoring his extra-marital activities).
A great player, but I can't bring myself to vote for him as the GOAT at this time.

Federer - Similar to Woods in that he dominated his sport through most of the 00s, but in Federer's case the records he has achieved put him ahead of all other male players (noting that Laver's career stats were compromised by the years he spent as a pro in the mid 60s precluding him playing the Slam tournaments). 17 Slam titles, dominating at both Wimbledon and Flushing Meadow, and the record of appearing in 18 out of 19 Grand Slam finals between 2005 and 2010 - quite staggering achievements. All achieved with a style and grace around the court that has rarely if ever been equalled.

If it wasn't for Nadal, Fed's records would just be ridiculous - 3 consecutive defeats to Rafa in the RG final including two that prevented a Grand Slam, plus their epic Wimbledon final. Indeed, the only two weaknesses you can make for Fed in this GOAT discussion is that his head to head record against Nadal is poor (noting that this is slightly skewed by the number of clay court meetings, the surface where Nadal is the best ever), and that he has let a few titles slip away from winning positions (two USO titles against Del Potro and Djokovic where he was match point or match winning break point up).

I suspect Woods and Federer will run away with this round, and probably rightly so. Both are contenders for the overall title in my view. I think that's harsh on Gebreselassie though, who was a tremendous runner, did loads for the sport and comes across as a real gentleman.

Gebre won a then unprecedented 4 consecutive world championships over 10,000 metres (since then matched by Kenenisa Bekele) as well as two Olympic golds, the second coming in an extraordinary race which he won by literally centimetres after producing an astonishing sprint finish (video here, apologies for poor quality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkbazvD055o) - this race ensured he would be unbeaten in 7 years over 10,000 m, a truly astounding feat.

The 2003 final which marked the passing of the torch between Haile and his successor Kenenisa Bekele was another great race, with Kenenisa racing away from his mentor in the final bend. The second half of that 10,000 was run in 12.57 (Bekele) and 12.58 (Haile) - remarkable when you think that sub-13 is still considered the benchmark to be a genuine competitor over the 5,000 - yet both Bekele and Gebreselassie ran this having already ran 5,000 metres!

Gebreselassie also held the world records for both the 5,000 and 10,000 metres at times during his career (although like Bekele and indeed Zatopek he never truly dominated the 5,000 event - in fact arguably no one has in history).

Whilst you could certainly make cases for Bekele (who matched most of Haile's feats, and achieved the double at the Beijing olympics) and Zatopek (whose extraordinary games in 1952 deserved more recognition in these threads) to rank above him (and maybe even Finn Lasse Viren), I would argue you couldn't have had Bekele with Gebreselassie before him, and add to that his work as an ambassador for the sport and Haile is IMO a worthy contender.

Unfortunately, he is in a tough group, and an unglamorous sport (I expect athletics to be dominated by the sprinters which is a shame, but to the casual fan I guess athletics is the sprints - perhaps with Farrah's success this will change in the UK at least). Despite my admiration for the man, I can't honestly vote for him in this one.

Davis shouldn't get a look in. No one would have him as the best ever snooker player (Hendry, or maybe Joe Davis, or if you're going to argue standards then you could even make a case for John Higgins), and snooker is a niche sport in any case. In such a tough group, I can't see how anyone can vote for him TBH.

Woods should be there or thereabouts. When at his peak he dominated golf in a way which no one else has. But doubts remain over whether that peak was too short compared to others (Nicklaus of course, but it will be interesting whether with overall competition increased we will see someone stay at his peak for anything like the stretch of time Nicklaus did, or whether 10 or so years will become more the norm). Other doubts are over his ability to win tournaments from behind, and of course his character.

My vote goes to Federer. First of all, for unquestionably (IMO) being the greatest tennis player of all time (I agree with superflyweight that he's in the top few clay court players as well - certainly from the modern era I would only rank Nadal, Borg and maybe Kuerten above him). A level of domination and consistency which we've never seen before and may never see again. As much as that though, it's the frequency of the times when he makes you go "wow" which stands out for me. Quite often in sport, the genius falls just short of being the best of the best (O'Sullivan in snooker, Pietersen in cricket, McEnroe in tennis, maybe even Ballesteros in golf were all beaten regularly by more boring but effective players) - in some ways it's as if their genius means they can't bring themselves to grind out results when things aren't going there way. Federer though is not only the most delightful to watch, he is also the most successful. That takes some beating.

Vilas maybe, lots of clay court titles and had to play Borg.

captain carrantuohil wrote:Moya? You can't be serious. 16 clay court titles to ten, I agree, but that's where Carlos chose to play most of his tournaments. You never saw Fed chasing off to Acapulco, Costa do Sauipe, Umag or other vastly important tournaments to rack up a victory.

In the clay court tournaments that matter, Carlos has one French Open title, plus two clay court Masters titles and one other Masters Final appearance. By my reckoning, Roger has one French Open title and four other finals appearances, six Masters victories on clay and seven other appearances in Masters Finals. Just three of Roger's ten clay court tournament wins have therefore been of minimal significance (Munich, Gstaad and Estoril). For ten years, Roger hasn't played on clay beyond the traditional April-first week of June cycle and has still racked up a record that's demonstrably superior to Moya's. Without the great Nadal to impede him, Roger's clay court stats would be comparable with Borg's.

The thing with Federer and Clay is that he was able to transfer his game and talent to the Clay courts and think that is why some rate him highly on it. He has a made many a final only to be outdone by Nadal mostly. You do get Clay Court specialists, but I think because Roger hasn't the stack of titles does it make look like a small weakeness on his impressive CV.

Diggers wrote:Vilas maybe, lots of clay court titles and had to play Borg.

That is a very interesting point and one I would agree with.

I tend to agree with Wilander (I think it was him who said it) that Federer is probably inside the top three or four on the red stuff in the Open era. Nadal and Borg are the clay court monoliths, of course, and I suppose it's impossible to have Federer ahead of Kuerten as well. Interestingly, an injury-ridden Kuerten has a straight sets win over a pretty much peak Federer at the 2004 French Open on the clay, which makes his claim to be higher pretty undisputed, by my reckoning. Almost certainly denied Federer the Grand Slam that year - Coria would have been his main rival for the title once they'd got to the advanced stages and Federer had beaten him in the Hamburg Masters final just a fortnight before, and that's not to mention Coria producing the worst display of bottling I've seen in a 'Slam final. He wilted against Gaudio, so it's hard to see him not doing the same against Federer.

Anyway, Federer gets my vote in this group and, to me, is one of the giants who wouldn't look out of place winning this whole thing outright. For me, his tennis between 2004 and 2007 was like nothing else I've seen; I've never witnessed any other player who hit the ball so cleanly, who produced so many winners / passing shots on both wings, who was as seldom given the run around by their opponent. His 2004 mauling of Hewitt in the 2004 US Open final is, to this day, THE most incredible display of shot-making artistry and complete tennis I've been lucky enough to see, and his 2005 Wimbledon final win over Roddick wouldn't be far behind.

The article above touches upon his records, but in my eyes it's how he's broken them which leaves the biggest impression; before he won those twenty-four successive ATP finals, the record was twelve, just half of that. Connor's record of 160 weeks consecutively wasn't just broken by Federer's 237, it was smashed to smithereens.

Aside from his post-match interview after Berdych dumped him out of Wimbledon 2010, he's always been what I want a great sportsman to be, as well. A giant of sporting history and I'll always consider myself very fortunate to have been able to see his peak as it happened.

Yes, diggers, I've definitely got Vilas on my list of about half a dozen that I would put above Rog on clay. Mind you, this is a fantastic overall rating - best or second best on grass (Sampras the competitor), greatest on hard courts, greatest or equal greatest (with McEnroe) indoors and no worse than seventh all-time on clay. Hard to call anyone else Federer's equal as an all-round tennis player, isn't it?

Federer's clay record is a tough one to dissect. For years he was the clear number two on clay behind Rafa, and even now is probably number three behind Rafa and Novak.

Personally I think he would have beaten the Brugera's, Musters and Agassi's of this world. Kuertan, Lendl and Villas would have been tough but I often think back to how good Federer could be on clay in spells: battling Rafa to five sets in Rome over five hours and reaching match point, beating Rafa 6-2 and 6-0 in the last two sets in their match in Hamburg, taking the first set of the FO 2006 final against Rafa 6-1, beating Novak in 2011 at the FO when Novak had been unbeaten all year.

When I consider his actual level of play I think only Borg and Nadal can surpass it on clay. It's just unfortunate for Fed that he's had to compete against the greatest clay courter ever in Nadal and with the matchup advantage that Rafa has over him it just exacerbates the seeming gap between the two of them, whereas I think in real terms, talent wise, the gap between Rafa and Roger is not that great on clay, but the two of them are probably far ahead of the rest of the field (at their peak). So in a nutshell, Roger's actual clay prowess in any other era would probably have got him multiple FO titles and we'd have him him in the top group, just below Rafa and likely, Borg.

Of course Kuertan did beat him at the FO in 2004 in 3 sets. One could argue Federer was just startingto hit his stride at that point.



emancipator

Mike Selig wrote:
My vote goes to Federer. First of all, for unquestionably (IMO) being the greatest tennis player of all time (I agree with superflyweight that he's in the top few clay court players as well - certainly from the modern era I would only rank Nadal, Borg and maybe Kuerten above him). A level of domination and consistency which we've never seen before and may never see again. As much as that though, it's the frequency of the times when he makes you go "wow" which stands out for me. Quite often in sport, the genius falls just short of being the best of the best (O'Sullivan in snooker, Pietersen in cricket, McEnroe in tennis, maybe even Ballesteros in golf were all beaten regularly by more boring but effective players) - in some ways it's as if their genius means they can't bring themselves to grind out results when things aren't going there way. Federer though is not only the most delightful to watch, he is also the most successful. That takes some beating.

You managed to say in a paragraph what it took me a page to try and say.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Diggers wrote:Vilas maybe, lots of clay court titles and had to play Borg.

That is a very interesting point and one I would agree with.

Strewth

I tend to agree with Wilander (I think it was him who said it) that Federer is probably inside the top three or four on the red stuff in the Open era.

Thanks, Chris. It was Willander that said it.

I'd gave Federer low in my top 10 of clay courters but to be honest when you have Nadal and Borg its a bit of a case of them and everyone else is nowhere scenario. So not a Federer strength Id choose to play on.

Apologies MtotheC, I did not finish my Steve Davis write up in time due to work commitments. Have just had to quickly complete it, if some of the stats are wrong I apologise as they are mostly off the top of my head:

Steve Davis OBE
A great sportsperson can be defined in a number of ways. We could have the great champion, someone who dominated their sport for a period. Or someone that had an incredibly long career at the top. Even someone who fundamentally changed the way their sport was played. It is certainly a rare specimen that can be classified as two let alone all three of these.

Growing up in the 80’s there was one name above all others that was synonymous with Snooker: Steve Davis. There were popular characters such as Alex Higgins and Jimmy White but only one great champion. Often mocked for being boring, Davis did his talking on the snooker table, taking apart opponents in a period of domination only approached since by Stephen Hendry.

I will come on to his record but let’s start with impact. Why was Davis considered boring? I think simply because he was the first player to really take a fully professional approach to snooker and recognise it for what it was: a growing sport where riches could be made. Is practicing so hard you leave nothing to chance really boring? Refusing to drink during matches boring? Playing with intensity? I would say not – and almost all players that have followed have realised that being an endearing character does not pay the bills and deliver silverware, it is only winning that will do that. Davis’ approach drastically improved the standard of the game, paving the way for the incredible level of play achieved by future greats such as Hendry, O’Sullivan and John Higgins.

So what of that record? Davis won 6 out of the 10 World Championships in the 1980’s. Add to that numerous other titles including several victories in The Masters and UK Championship and you can only be awestruck by his dominance and consistency. Even in rare defeat, Davis will be remembered. The 1985 final, watched by a UK TV audience of almost 20 million people in a beyond midnight finish went to the final black. Taylor won, Davis was gracious in defeat and certainly played his part in the greatest match ever. In what is likely to be his final tally, Davis has reached 41 ranking finals, winning 28 titles.

Snooker is not a physical pursuit but I would argue it is a young man’s game. Stephen Hendry, Davis’s main contender for the snooker GOAT won his last world title aged 30. A sport based on such precision naturally favours the undiminished motor skills of the younger player. Davis is unique in his longevity, and has only relatively recently showed signs of a terminal decline. Of course his period of domination is long over, but Davis has remained competitive well past the age of 45. Aged 48 Davis was still good enough to reach the UK Championship final in 2005 and had a season in the all-important Top 16 at the age of 50. He has the ability to qualify for major events to this day; the competitive instinct refuses to be extinguished. One of his greatest coups was in 2010 when he beat defending champion John Higgins to progress to the World Championship Quarter Finals. A huge shock no doubt but in some ways not that surprising: every player would have known that on his day this elder statesman still had the game to defeat them.

And finally back to that personality: Davis has a fantastic dry wit, makes time for the fans and provides analysis and commentary of the highest quality. The often vile British media with their hypocritical dual delight-and-disgust at sportspeople that make a mess of their lives will chip away at characters like Davis with the boring tag as a mark of their own disappointment. There’s no story to tell outside of his sporting excellence, Davis is a true class act on and off the baize.

The pioneer, the great champion, the evergreen. Davis is certainly all three.
[/b][b]

Nice write up VTR but he is up against it in this group.

Too right Stella! I wrote most of it before seeing the group, hoping he might get a Gavin Hastings or two as competition and sneak through.

Finishing the write up off today I felt like a condemned man going to the gallows!

Roger Federer by a distance for me.

I went for Tiger Woods on this one.

Tiger is by some distance the best player in modern Golf and has still some considerable opportunities to improve his records further.

On the other hand, Federer in my view has Borg ahead of him as the strongest player in the modern era. Borg has been more dominant in his years and has had to face stronger competition: Vilas, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl are all of them all time greats, while Federer has had mostly only Nadal for a long strech of his career.

Said that Federer is for me the player who has performed the highest level of tennis for a season or a couple of seasons.

I'm no Tennis nut but did Bjorg face much of Lendl?

Wow I wasn't expecting to see Gebreselassie so far behind. He's the go to name when you think of long distance running and has inspired so many. But I guess when you have four valid candidates you can't really complain.

Personal choice but Gebreselassie for me.

Stella wrote:I'm no Tennis nut but did Bjorg face much of Lendl?

Yes he did. If you consider that Borg retired at 26 and that there are anly 4 yrs between the two.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=B058&oId=L018