Well, if you have ever seen a one sided supporter base, crowd, commentators, et al., it was the Ajla Tomljanović game versus Serena.
Time stops for nobody, great career from Serena.
Great win by Ajla Tomljanovic, giant slayer.
Can't believe they call Serena the GOAT. Margaret court has her covered. This woke bullcrap can't erase peoples names on trophies.
Leaving aside the well known difficulties of comparing players / teams from different eras, I don't think the "woke crowd" has any interest in erasing names on trophies. Court gets criticized because she's a homophobic cow, with a selective and poorly contextualized reading of the Bible.
Leaving aside the well known difficulties of comparing players / teams from different eras, I don't think the "woke crowd" has any interest in erasing names on trophies. Court gets criticized because she's a homophobic cow, with a selective and poorly contextualized reading of the Bible.
Couldn't care less.
The scoreboard says court 24 grand slams, Williams 23.
She won 13 of her Grand Slam titles prior to the Open Era. Serena won all hers in the Open Era when prize money ensured all slams were hotly contested.
The other knock on Court is that she won 11 out of her 24 titles in Australia and 8 of those were contested only by amateurs. The distance and cost of travel thinned out the competition. Now, we are used to all the top players coming to the Aus Open as it offers the biggest prize pool but the Aus Open was the poor relation of the other slams until it moved away from Kooyong. There was even a time when serious consideration was being given to stripping the Aus Open of its Grand Slam status and giving it to the Italian Open.
I have no doubt Serena should be seen as the GOAT.
Comparing sportspeople from different eras is always a little subjective. Schumacher v Senna, Schumacher v Hamilton, never easy and there is always a bias. Strictly speaking, by definition of Grand Slams, Court has 24 Serena 23 so from that perspective only, technically Court is the GOAT even if she is seen as a crap person.
Couldn't care less.
The scoreboard says court 24 grand slams, Williams 23.
Tend to agree.
Couldn't care less.
The scoreboard says court 24 grand slams, Williams 23.
The point I was making is that your invocation of "woke bullcrap" as the reason why some may choose Williams as the GOAT is questionable IMO.
Does this mean some folks think Carlton aren't the GOAT :(
The point I was making is that your invocation of "woke bullcrap" as the reason why some may choose Williams as the GOAT is questionable IMO.
why else would they dismissive the proverbial score on the board when it doesnt apply to other teams such as Carlton, Liverpool, Essendon, Collingwood.
The definition justifying Serena as GOAT should see Hawthorn lauded as the AFLs GOAT.
She won 13 of her Grand Slam titles prior to the Open Era. Serena won all hers in the Open Era when prize money ensured all slams were hotly contested.
The other knock on Court is that she won 11 out of her 24 titles in Australia and 8 of those were contested only by amateurs. The distance and cost of travel thinned out the competition. Now, we are used to all the top players coming to the Aus Open as it offers the biggest prize pool but the Aus Open was the poor relation of the other slams until it moved away from Kooyong. There was even a time when serious consideration was being given to stripping the Aus Open of its Grand Slam status and giving it to the Italian Open.
I have no doubt Serena should be seen as the GOAT.
Exactly. And why comparing two great tennis players from different eras for the title of GOAT is actually meaningless.
And on the other point... Court tarnished her reputation with her repugnant views on human sexuality and marriage partner choice(s). Attempting to legitimize her comments re Fundamentalist Biblical quotes is just lazy, ignorant and tiresome.
Exactly. And why comparing two great tennis players from different eras for the title of GOAT is actually meaningless.
And on the other point... Court tarnished her reputation with her repugnant views on human sexuality and marriage partner choice(s). Attempting to legitimize her comments re Fundamentalist Biblical quotes is just lazy, ignorant and tiresome.
Im able to separate ones sporting achievements from humanitarian/morality standpoints. Maybe Ive got a bit of "serial killer" in me. :D
Im able to separate ones sporting achievements from humanitarian/morality standpoints. Maybe Ive got a bit of "serial killer" in me. :D
I've just made a post on this theme in the 'General Discussion' thread but extended it to achievements in other fields as well (specifically music.)
why else would they dismissive the proverbial score on the board when it doesnt apply to other teams such as Carlton, Liverpool, Essendon, Collingwood.
The definition justifying Serena as GOAT should see Hawthorn lauded as the AFLs GOAT.
I don't understand your point.
Margaret court has achieved things no one else has and did it in an era that contained greats such as evonne goolagong, Billie jean king, and Martina Navratilova. She held the title of all 4 grand slams in one calender year twice during her career.
I cannot fathom why we are devaluing her sporting achievements because she won 11 Aussie opens with qualifying statements.
She played in an era with her peers, and achieved a lot against them. Why the push to requalify what a GOAT is?
Margaret court has achieved things no one else has and did it in an era that contained greats such as evonne goolagong, Billie jean king, and Martina Navratilova. She held the title of all 4 grand slams in one calender year twice during her career.
Not really any overlap between Court and Navratilova, one was semi-retired playing only doubles when the other was just starting out.
It could be argued the off-court platitudes are as a result of on-court success, but the wokism seems to disregard this, they are either unable or unwilling to separate emotion from politics, cancel culture is exactly as the term suggests. In reality it's a form of collective rock throwing.
But fans perhaps should not justify the off-court behaviour of some, Court, Joker, Connors, etc al, using their on-court success as an excuse. The criticisms and sanctions are not related to what happens on court.
FWIW, I see the same applying to Goodes, in a case where his means(behaviour) cannot be justified away by the ends no matter how good the intentions. By some weird logic, those criticisms are somehow turned by boosters into an ad-hominem attack on Goodes, or even more weirdly support for racists or bigots, but of course that is not true either, it's just another form of extremism.
That saying about heading far enough right or left only to end up back in the middle was never truer than right at this moment in time.
Margaret court has achieved things no one else has and did it in an era that contained greats such as evonne goolagong, Billie jean king, and Martina Navratilova. She held the title of all 4 grand slams in one calender year twice during her career.
I cannot fathom why we are devaluing her sporting achievements because she won 11 Aussie opens with qualifying statements.
She played in an era with her peers, and achieved a lot against them. Why the push to requalify what a GOAT is?
Because GOAT is subjective and selective. Her achievements on the tennis court were great. Tremendous. And deserving of acknowledgement and admiration. By not subscribing to GOAT is not to devalue her achievements.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/25/serena-williams-margaret-court-grand-slam-record/
Food for thought.
Yep. Only the “Everyone has a right to be a bigot” crew would back Court over Serena.
I’m trying to think of when a non-Carlton fan has acknowledged that Carlton is the GOAT … no, it’s never happened. Perhaps this is similar to the current debate: only Court’s fans would bother claiming she is the GOAT. No one else who knows anything about tennis would agree.
Yep. Only the “Everyone has a right to be a bigot” crew would back Court over Serena.
Bigotry has neither an inherent or implied vector.
Of course it doesn’t - vectors have nothing to do with bigotry unless you speak corporate jargon (and I don’t).
Of course it doesn’t - vectors have nothing to do with bigotry unless you speak corporate jargon (and I don’t).
Almost nobody on here submits posts that imply bigotry is unidirectional, ................. and yet .................... !
"bigot
[ˈbɪɡət]
NOUN
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group:"
Hands up if you're not a bigot. ;)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/08/25/serena-williams-margaret-court-grand-slam-record/
Food for thought.
To be totally frank, it is almost impossible to compare records from one era to the next.Rules change, conditions change, even equipment. And almost all of these changes are to the benefit of the players, eg there were no tie-breakers in Court's era, they played on less predictable surfaces, and they used racquets that were ridiculously heavy and user-unfriendly compared to the graphite models of today.All of this means that most modern-day players can have much longer and relatively injury-free careers than 50+ years ago. They are also far more affluent so they can employ the best support crew, coaches, personal trainers, physios etc etc. to keep them going throughout the year, as well as each tournament week.So, our American friend how penned this article has conveniently forgotten to add that it was much tougher to simply get to the end of the tournament in the 50's and 60s. Serena may have had to battle tougher opponents, but she had the luxury of returning to a penthouse suite in between games and getting a personal massage. I'm betting Rod Laver and Margaret Court didn't have those same benefits......
Both side-ism at its finest. Bigots like Court are the same as bigots who don’t like Court’s attacks on the LGBTI community. Bravo!
To be totally frank, it is almost impossible to compare records from one era to the next.
Rules change, conditions change, even equipment. And almost all of these changes are to the benefit of the players, eg there were no tie-breakers in Court's era, they played on less predictable surfaces, and they used racquets that were ridiculously heavy and user-unfriendly compared to the graphite models of today.
All of this means that most modern-day players can have much longer and relatively injury-free careers than 50+ years ago. They are also far more affluent so they can employ the best support crew, coaches, personal trainers, physios etc etc. to keep them going throughout the year, as well as each tournament week.
So, our American friend how penned this article has conveniently forgotten to add that it was much tougher to simply get to the end of the tournament in the 50's and 60s. Serena may have had to battle tougher opponents, but she had the luxury of returning to a penthouse suite in between games and getting a personal massage. I'm betting Rod Laver and Margaret Court didn't have those same benefits......
There is some truth to that, but I think you've focused on one side of the equation, i.e the aspects that were tougher back then, and I think a more balanced exposition is required.
Not sure if bigotry is even worth discussing here.
It literally has nothing to do with the price of fish.
Court played in a dinosaur era where it was practically a different sport. Serena 8 months pregnant would have smashed her.
Margaret court has achieved things no one else has and did it in an era that contained greats such as evonne goolagong, Billie jean king, and Martina Navratilova. She held the title of all 4 grand slams in one calender year twice during her career.
I cannot fathom why we are devaluing her sporting achievements because she won 11 Aussie opens with qualifying statements.
She played in an era with her peers, and achieved a lot against them. Why the push to requalify what a GOAT is?
We all know why.
There is some truth to that, but I think you've focused on one side of the equation, i.e the aspects that were tougher back then, and I think a more balanced exposition is required.
I just presented a series of facts that the American correspondent chose to ignore in her article, she spent the whole time talking about how easy it was for Court without considering the other side of that coin. I have no doubt that there was less competition back in Court's day, and the Australian Open of the early 60's was far less prestigious and challenging than it is today.
But just as we Bluebaggers are happy to count VFL premiership cups won near the start of the 20th century in our trophy cabinet, so too will the records always show that Court has one more Grand Slam than Serena.
And we all know Serena would have wiped Court off the court - but in the same comparison, an AFL side of today would run rings around our 1970 premiership team. It doesn't make the heroics of that group any less impressive either. You can only beat the best that is thrown up against you when you are playing - any other comparison is inherently flawed.
I just presented a series of facts that the American correspondent chose to ignore in her article, she spent the whole time talking about how easy it was for Court without considering the other side of that coin. I have no doubt that there was less competition back in Court's day, and the Australian Open of the early 60's was far less prestigious and challenging than it is today.
But just as we Bluebaggers are happy to count VFL premiership cups won near the start of the 20th century in our trophy cabinet, so too will the records always show that Court has one more Grand Slam than Serena.
And we all know Serena would have wiped Court off the court - but in the same comparison, an AFL side of today would run rings around our 1970 premiership team. It doesn't make the heroics of that group any less impressive either. You can only beat the best that is thrown up against you when you are playing - any other comparison is inherently flawed.
I pretty much agree. The GOAT discussion across different eras is kind of silly, but that hasn't stopped people in the past and it won't stop them in the future. There are advantages and disadvantages for players then as now. Both Court and Serena achieved amazing things on court. I personally think it's hard to split them - both physically strong, powerful women who were top practitioners of their craft and who dominated whatever was in front of them. Their slam records are nearly identical. I'd call it even.
I pretty much agree. The GOAT discussion across different eras is kind of silly, but that hasn't stopped people in the past and it won't stop them in the future. There are advantages and disadvantages for players then as now. Both Court and Serena achieved amazing things on court. I personally think it's hard to split them - both physically strong, powerful women who were top practitioners of their craft and who dominated whatever was in front of them. Their slam records are nearly identical. I'd call it even.
Spot on Pauly. Lots of factors across eras. racket technology, ball technology, sports science, strength and conditioning technology, diet/hydration. The list goes on.
Spot on Pauly. Lots of factors across eras. racket technology, ball technology, sports science, strength and conditioning technology, diet/hydration. The list goes on.
Yep. I should also add, that if you do a google search for a Williams v Court comparison, all the "experts" (tennis journalists, ex players etc.) that I have found give the nod to Serena, usually prefacing their articles / statements with the caveat that such comparisons are a little suss.
Strictly speaking, this isn't a US Open thread, but Kyrgios has just blown Medvedev off the court. Hopefully the new improved Nick is permanent. He was seriously impressive. Mods please move this post if required.
He’s still a bit combustible and still loves to throw in low-percentage plays every now and then. For example, not only did he do an underhand serve in at 40-0 in the 3rd set, it was an underhand serve he hit between his legs, a ‘tweener! Fortunately, it drifted wide for a fault as Medvedev was on to it and hit a cross-court winner off it. But that sort of unpredictable play was perfect against a chess player like Medvedev who will dominate a player who reliably plays the percentages like a Cobra hypnotising it’s prey.
And then there was this brain fade from Kyrgios: https://au.yahoo.com/sports/us-open-2022-nick-kyrgios-loses-point-after-illegal-act-against-daniil-medvedev-014015396.html (https://au.yahoo.com/sports/us-open-2022-nick-kyrgios-loses-point-after-illegal-act-against-daniil-medvedev-014015396.html)
Apart from young kids, what tennis player would try to hit a winning volley off a ball that was going to be out by 2 metres? This could have been a critical blunder as it deprived him of a break point early in the 3rd (and Medvedev served out that game) but Kyrgios was able to rally and win the 3rd set anyway.
He’s still a bit combustible and still loves to throw in low-percentage plays every now and then. For example, not only did he do an underhand serve in at 40-0 in the 3rd set, it was an underhand serve he hit between his legs, a ‘tweener! Fortunately, it drifted wide for a fault as Medvedev was on to it and hit a cross-court winner off it. But that sort of unpredictable play was perfect against a chess player like Medvedev who will dominate a player who reliably plays the percentages like a Cobra hypnotising it’s prey.
Yes, I'm not really a fan of those tactics. Without having the facts, I'd say that they backfire more than they work. I can appreciate it becomes a mental / focus issue for the other guy because you keep them second guessing, but I'm not really sure how effective they are tbh. I'd guess that Kyrgios can win without them.
And then there was this brain fade from Kyrgios: https://au.yahoo.com/sports/us-open-2022-nick-kyrgios-loses-point-after-illegal-act-against-daniil-medvedev-014015396.html (https://au.yahoo.com/sports/us-open-2022-nick-kyrgios-loses-point-after-illegal-act-against-daniil-medvedev-014015396.html)
Apart from young kids, what tennis player would try to hit a winning volley off a ball that was going to be out by 2 metres? This could have been a critical blunder as it deprived him of a break point early in the 3rd but Kyrgios was able to rally and break anyway.
There's no doubt that parts of his game still need work, mostly on the mental / discipline side.
Its ironic, but that same ability to do the unthinkable at the wrong moment is why he actually is able to beat a lot of opponents. Predictable isn't in his repertoir.
Strangely enough, the brain fade when he hit the out ball was credited by tennis journos/commentators as driving his determination to win the set. Most players would lose focus as they dwelt on their stupidity and the lost opportunity. He finds his motivation in strange places.
Ajla won again.
Yep. Into the quarters. It’s amazing her career highlight comes when she’s 29. Great effort to keep up her momentum after the physical and emotional stress of playing Serena in front of her home crowd.
Ajla was quite a consistent performer when she was younger but I'm not sure she ever got past the quarters, although you could see she was more than capable of it.
She was one of the very few back then that backed up the high fashion looks with some serious on court performance, but perhaps at that time she lost her way a little as many others have. It must be so easy for them to lose focus, the world is laid at their feet, and sometimes it creates a monster.
Wow, Nadal is out, losing to Tiafoe in 4. Got to be good news for Kyrgios, although Nadal 2.0 (Alcaraz) is still in the other half of the draw.
Can't believe they call Serena the GOAT. Margaret court has her covered. This woke bullcrap can't erase peoples names on trophies.
I'm not sure that I understand "woke" but what has it got to do with Serena's GOAT status? Court may have won one more grand slam but that was in a different era; the best tennis players couldn't compete in grand slam tournaments for around half of Court's career.
I reckon Martina Navratilova is the GOAT with Williams and Court tied in second place.
Steffi Graf for mine.
I'm not sure that I understand "woke" but what has it got to do with Serena's GOAT status? Court may have won one more grand slam but that was in a different era; the best tennis players couldn't compete in grand slam tournaments for around half of Court's career.
I reckon Martina Navratilova is the GOAT with Williams and Court tied in second place.
comparing eras is tricky business and the score on the board is important. Vs her peers at the time court both travelled the world and dominated them all.
Its folly to suggest that the Aussie opens were weaker ergo she isn't the GOAT.
One example is she has played for 7 years longer than court did as an example.
comparing eras is tricky business and the score on the board is important.
Agreed, for example the rackets now are twice the size and lighter, more powerful, the tennis balls are all standardized, footwear again better and lighter, clothing massively improved, even the surfaces are massively improved for all types including grass which is now genetically modified and laser levelled for a carpet like surface.
For the bulk of Court's career, if a player blew up at a chair umpire like the modern players do it wasn't just the loss of point, they would have lost a set or match, be banned from the next few tournaments, losing their income.
Perhaps the biggest issue, players now earn a comfortable living from just being on the tour, they don't have to win everything to survive, in fact if they qualify they barely have to win a game and they'll still be financially compensated!
I'm with you on the wokism, to me it is self evident in the public commentary, and those attitudes do have an impact, influencing opinion and changing careers. Now a sponsor might decide on an offer based on a players "image being a fit" with actual ability only a minor consideration. Many many minutes of pretty much everything and anything but tennis gets discussed, fashion, appearance, language, conduct, relationships, family, etc., etc.. Ironically, the same people that bang on like that tell us they are better educated than those of the past, not as judgemental and more tolerant! :o
I'm still wondering why a vote for Serena and not Court must be based on wokism.
I'm still wondering why a vote for Serena and not Court must be based on wokism.
More of a vote against Court. Her social views are not compatible with her being the GOAT, ergo, its very sign of the times to erase anything that doesn't fit.
My argument is that had she not had these views, no one would be interested in erasing her sporting achievements. There have even been calls to take her name off the staidum at Melbourne Park. Is it fair? Thats a different discussion not linked to her sporting achievement.
More of a vote against Court. Her social views are not compatible with her being the GOAT, ergo, its very sign of the times to erase anything that doesn't fit.
My argument is that had she not had these views, no one would be interested in erasing her sporting achievements. There have even been calls to take her name off the stadium at Melbourne Park. Is it fair? That's a different discussion not linked to her sporting achievement.
I appreciate you answering my query, but I think there's a conflation of different issues here, and it's getting hard to disentangle one from the other.
Her sporting achievements, in terms of the raw numbers, are a matter of historical fact. This isn't Nineteen Eighty-Four. There is no attempt to erase history, because there can't be. How you interpret and contextualize her achievements relative to other players, is the issue.
I also don't believe that removing her name from Margaret Court Arena is an attempt to diminish her sporting achievements, and I don't think that's possible. You could possibly argue that it is a back door punishment for her opinions, but once again, that's a separate issue and not linked to sport. This is a political and social issue, and her feats in tennis will remain unchanged. I don't believe anyone will think she is a lesser tennis player if her name is removed, or because of her beliefs. They may think of her as a lesser human, or an uninformed human, or a stubborn human with outdated ideas etc., but once again, that's not related to sport IMO.
I'm still wondering why a vote for Serena and not Court must be based on wokism.
Me too! If that's not too woke.
It's a funny term; worn as a badge of pride by some and used derogatively by others ::)
Stick Will Setterfield ingto a time machine and send him back to 1969 and he'd probably win the Brownlow and we'd have an extra flag ;D
Times change, things progress.
Williams vs Court would be a total mismatch.
That shouldn't diminish the achievements of the past...and records are made to be broken.
Back in 1970, Court came out with this interesting take on apartheid: “ South Africans have this thing better organised than any other country, particularly America …I love South Africa.” Remember, the English Test team’s 1968 tour of South Africa had been cancelled because the English called up Basil D’Oliviera. The ICC banned the South Africans in 1970. The South Africans had been banned from the Olympics in 1964.
If she’d said that sports and politics shouldn’t be mixed, that would be one thing. But to laud the apartheid system is unforgivable. By necessary implication, she implied Australia would be better organised if we had apartheid (ignoring, for the moment, that we probably were not that far from it back then). You’d think she might have been more diplomatic given Evonne Goolagong was on her way to world number 1 in 1971. Court was lucky that Goolagong idolised her and Court never had to answer for her comment. But where was the public apology for that racist comment?
The same dynamic occurred with her homophobic attacks when she knew Sam Stosur and Casey Dellacqua we’re lesbians. She had previously attacked Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova. How could she feign surprise that she wouldn’t be welcome in the tennis community with that sort of history? It wasn’t as though she didn’t realise she was offending anyone. She said of her attacks that, “My statement was akin to pulling the pin on a hand grenade and throwing it into a crowded room.” And she parlayed those attacks into calls for donations to her church.
Court is a contemptible piece of crap. Her 24 Grand Slam titles will not be erased, but that doesn’t mean she is the best player of all time. Serena, Steffi and others were better than her and they’re also much better people.
Back in 1970, Court came out with this interesting take on apartheid: “ South Africans have this thing better organised than any other country, particularly America …I love South Africa.” Remember, the English Test team’s 1968 tour of South Africa had been cancelled because the English called up Basil D’Oliviera. The ICC banned the South Africans in 1970. The South Africans had been banned from the Olympics in 1964.
If she’d said that sports and politics shouldn’t be mixed, that would be one thing. But to laud the apartheid system is unforgivable. By necessary implication, she implied Australia would be better organised if we had apartheid (ignoring, for the moment, that we probably were not that far from it back then). You’d think she might have been more diplomatic given Evonne Goolagong was on her way to world number 1 in 1971. Court was lucky that Goolagong idolised her and Court never had to answer for her comment. But where was the public apology for that racist comment?
The same dynamic occurred with her homophobic attacks when she knew Sam Stosur and Casey Dellacqua we’re lesbians. She had previously attacked Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova. How could she feign surprise that she wouldn’t be welcome in the tennis community with that sort of history? It wasn’t as though she didn’t realise she was offending anyone. She said of her attacks that, “My statement was akin to pulling the pin on a hand grenade and throwing it into a crowded room.” And she parlayed those attacks into calls for donations to her church.
Court is a contemptible piece of crap. Her 24 Grand Slam titles will not be erased, but that doesn’t mean she is the best player of all time. Serena, Steffi and others were better than her and they’re also much better people.
See Paul?
Its not solely about seeing someone new as greater.
No, it’s about recognising pieces of crap when you see them. But a piece of crap can still be the best in his or her field. Henry Ford is a contender for the most influential car manufacturer ever despite being a racist arsehole and fascist sympathiser. Wernher Von Braun has a good case to be regarded as the greatest rocket scientist ever despite being a likely war criminal as he was well aware the Nazis were using slave labour to advance his work (look up Operation Paperclip, part of which was an effort to whitewash the history of Nazi scientists and engineers so the US could continue to harness their skills).
Put another way, a person may be both the best and the worst at the same time. But it just so happens Margaret Court isn’t the best female tennis player of all time.
See Paul?
Its not solely about seeing someone new as greater.
I think Mav is making the same point as I am, albeit with more strident language. I've got no doubt that he would readily admit that Court is the GOAT if he thought that, because he is separating one part of her life from another. I understand from your perspective you see cause and effect (i.e Mav hates Court's opinions, therefore he is determined to knock her off the No1 spot), but I don't think that's quite right.
As I mentioned elsewhere, if you google Williams v Court or something similar, most of the scribes and experts (in fact all the ones I found without exception) give the nod to Serena. Obviously you can say that they are all woke, and they have to be because of their public standing, but IMO at some point you may have to accept that some folks believe Serena is No1 because that's just what they believe, and not because they have it in for Court.
Serena, Steffi and others were better than her and they’re also much better people.
In fairness, we have no knowledge of their private views because they keep them private, would a Nazi be innocent just because he stayed shtum?
Would Mother Teresa be beatified if she never made heard religion public?
It makes me think of Joker, who mostly got in trouble opening his mouth, at which time some lambast him while others forgive, but really any general commentary on either side of this debate is lumping together a diverse range of issues.
If we want to move the debate forward, it seems that allowing people to speak freely to have a wider transparency of beliefs seems critical, otherwise things can only turn subversive by definition. It doesn't matter if we think they are right or wrong.
If a loved one suffered a heart attack and Hitler offered to assist with CPR should he be denied the opportunity?
The lumped debate is nearly always wrong in just about any context.
I think Mav is making the same point as I am, albeit with more strident language. I've got no doubt that he would readily admit that Court is the GOAT if he thought that, because he is separating one part of her life from another. I understand from your perspective you see cause and effect (i.e Mav hates Court's opinions, therefore he is determined to knock her off the No1 spot), but I don't think that's quite right.
As I mentioned elsewhere, if you google Williams v Court or something similar, most of the scribes and experts (in fact all the ones I found without exception) give the nod to Serena. Obviously you can say that they are all woke, and they have to be because of their public standing, but IMO at some point you may have to accept that some folks believe Serena is No1 because that's just what they believe, and not because they have it in for Court.
In my experience this is how people operate. To be the GOAT its not solely about trophies its also about disposition, and for reference, I will point to the Roger Federer vs Novak Djokovic debate. Nadal has become the currently undisputed GOAT but you don't need to guess whom would be the alternative sans Novak.
In my experience this is how people operate. To be the GOAT its not solely about trophies its also about disposition, and for reference, I will point to the Roger Federer vs Novak Djokovic debate. Nadal has become the currently undisputed GOAT but you don't need to guess whom would be the alternative sans Novak.
Across eras I'm not even sure Federer is the best, Bjorn Borg was pretty good, I can't see how it is possible at all to rate each opponent of any great player to establish a baseline, so the GOAT claim is naturally subjective.
Let’s not confuse GOAT with “favourite player”. When we pick our favourite players, we’re entitled to take into account onfield and offield behaviour. We’re also entitled to take into account their ability to overcome adversity and their ability to extract everything from their bodies, even if they aren’t built like superheroes. For instance, Dean Rice was one of my favourites even though he wasn’t close to being the best in his time at Carlton.
Yes, agreed, it's very very rare you get an obvious GOAT like Lance Armstrong.
Let’s not confuse GOAT with “favourite player”. When we pick our favourite players, we’re entitled to take into account onfield and offield behaviour. We’re also entitled to take into account their ability to overcome adversity and their ability to extract everything from their bodies, even if they aren’t built like superheroes. For instance, Dean Rice was one of my favourites even though he wasn’t close to being the best in his time at Carlton.
Im not. Novak went past Federer on titles, and by definition the fact that they even have a close tally (and directly competed for the same trophy) makes Novak even achieving what he has against the double act of Federer and Nadal quite remarkable.
HOWEVER: Nadal will go down as the GOAT until he is surpassed, irrespective of how that is viewed by all and sundry.
In my experience this is how people operate. To be the GOAT its not solely about trophies its also about disposition, and for reference, I will point to the Roger Federer vs Novak Djokovic debate. Nadal has become the currently undisputed GOAT but you don't need to guess whom would be the alternative sans Novak.
Hmm. There's a few things I'd say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong :
1. I get the impression that your criteria for GOAT is basically number of slams ? If so, I think you need to look at more than that to even start a discussion.
2. I'm not sure words like "undisputed" have any place in the airy-fairy world of GOAT debates. I'm not at all sure that Rafa is the "undisputed" GOAT in current discussions.
3. It seems to me as though you are framing what you see in a way that supports your conclusions. You have the conclusion before you go out looking from what I can tell.
4. Your argument would, by logic, have to work both ways. If the "experts" are mostly saying Serena is the GOAT, then you saying otherwise may mean (following your logic with Mav) that you have some personal bias against Serena. It's not as though Mav is the only one who thinks this.
Mav is focusing on Court's personal aspects because he's making a point, which is that if you weaponize your faith in a way that harms others, then the gloves are off and you forfeit the right to be treated nicely. You will have to make up your own mind as to whether that's appropriate.
Mav is focusing on Court's personal aspects because he's making a point, which is that if you weaponize your faith in a way that harms others, then the gloves are off and you forfeit the right to be treated nicely. You will have to make up your own mind as to whether that's appropriate.
I find the concept of somehow weaponizing a personal perspective even more perplexing than the concept of declaring a GOAT.
Maybe if the combatant is a psychopath, but then in that circumstance everything is probably a weapon!
I find the concept of somehow weaponizing a personal perspective even more perplexing than the concept of declaring a GOAT.
Maybe if the combatant is a psychopath, but then in that circumstance everything is probably a weapon!
If you hold an opinion, and you accept no agency for that opinion ("it's not me, it's just what the Bible says"), and if you fail to acknowledge or accept that your opinion has clear negative consequences, that is for mine a weaponized opinion.
If you hold an opinion, and you accept no agency for that opinion ("it's not me, it's just what the Bible says"), and if you fail to acknowledge or accept that your opinion has clear negative consequences, that is for mine a weaponised opinion.
Yet, to me, that very position seems to be a tad circular
@PaulP There are frames of reference at play here that can potentially turn this into a never ending philosophical debate. I'm not sure how you discuss any issue based on faith and avoid your conclusion, to some degree at some level it's an inherent part of the belief system that you would conclude is weaponised.
Hmm. There's a few things I'd say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong :
1. I get the impression that your criteria for GOAT is basically number of slams ? If so, I think you need to look at more than that to even start a discussion.
2. I'm not sure words like "undisputed" have any place in the airy-fairy world of GOAT debates. I'm not at all sure that Rafa is the "undisputed" GOAT in current discussions.
3. It seems to me as though you are framing what you see in a way that supports your conclusions. You have the conclusion before you go out looking from what I can tell.
4. Your argument would, by logic, have to work both ways. If the "experts" are mostly saying Serena is the GOAT, then you saying otherwise may mean (following your logic with Mav) that you have some personal bias against Serena. It's not as though Mav is the only one who thinks this.
Mav is focusing on Court's personal aspects because he's making a point, which is that if you weaponize your faith in a way that harms others, then the gloves are off and you forfeit the right to be treated nicely. You will have to make up your own mind as to whether that's appropriate.
I think you've misunderstood what im saying and that can be due to how its been written.
The greatest of all time puts the score on the board. Whether or not they are likable is an extra dimension that isn't worth discussing and isn't something im necessarily interested in, but I believe others are.
Does that frame what im trying to say better and answer your question?
I dont see things in a way that supports my conclusions, I have drawn my conclusions from observing this behaviour.
But you’re conflating GOAT with the number of slams won. That’s just 1 relevant measure. And you can’t say that other measures can’t be considered because the mix of measures is subjective. This is especially the case when we’re talking a differential of only 1 slam and there’s heated agreement that comparisons between different eras are fraught.
For instance, Plugger unquestionably holds the record for the greatest number of goals kicked. But that doesn’t mean a case can’t be made that Jason Dunstall is the greatest FF in history. He played in 4 premierships while Plugger and Ablett played in none. As Ablett showed when he kicked 14 against Essendon, eclipsing Salmon’s 10, big bags don’t necessarily win games. Dunstall was more of a team player. And that might lead some to put him ahead of Plugger or Ablett. (Apologies to Coventry by the way)
Hmm. There's a few things I'd say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong :
1. I get the impression that your criteria for GOAT is basically number of slams ? If so, I think you need to look at more than that to even start a discussion.
Pauly can you elaborate on bold bit 2 please. Bold bit 1 is my criteria (ie number of titles) and there nothing else by which to measure IMO.
By the way, here’s a reddit debate on just that issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/1nmxsw/best_fullforward_of_all_time_and_why/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/1nmxsw/best_fullforward_of_all_time_and_why/)
Pauly can you elaborate on bold bit 2 please. Bold bit 1 is my criteria (ie number of titles) and there nothing else by which to measure IMO.
I think this discussion is lacking in accurate definitions, which unfortunately doesn't help anyone.
Trying to answer your question, firstly there is a difference between number of slams and number of titles. We need to know what it is we are counting. Secondly, when I refer to other criteria, there could be many : winning percentage, weeks at No1, Olympic medals, etc. In trying to assess the GOAT, as futile as it is, I don't believe looking at number of Grand Slams is enough.
But you’re conflating GOAT with the number of slams won. That’s just 1 relevant measure. And you can’t say that other measures can’t be considered because the mix of measures is subjective. This is especially the case when we’re talking a differential of only 1 slam and there’s heated agreement that comparisons between different eras are fraught.
For instance, Plugger unquestionably holds the record for the greatest number of goals kicked. But that doesn’t mean a case can’t be made that Jason Dunstall is the greatest FF in history. He played in 4 premierships while Plugger and Ablett played in none. As Ablett showed when he kicked 14 against Essendon, eclipsing Salmon’s 10, big bags don’t necessarily win games. Dunstall was more of a team player. And that might lead some to put him ahead of Plugger or Ablett. (Apologies to Coventry by the way)
No Im simply pointing at the scoreboard.
In Tennis thats much less subjective.
I think this discussion is lacking in accurate definitions, which unfortunately doesn't help anyone.
Trying to answer your question, firstly there is a difference between number of slams and number of titles. We need to know what it is we are counting. Secondly, when I refer to other criteria, there could be many : winning percentage, weeks at No1, Olympic medals, etc. In trying to assess the GOAT, as futile as it is, I don't believe looking at number of Grand Slams is enough.
Ok no worries, I mixed slams with Titles. For me its Titles.
No Im simply pointing at the scoreboard.
In Tennis thats much less subjective.
There are many scoreboards in tennis. How you weight them is up to you, but your result will remain debatable.
^^
Court’s career spanned both amateur and professional eras, amassing a 1,180-107 record—the most in history—which equates to a remarkable 92 percent winning mark. When the Open Era commenced in 1968, Court compiled a 593-56 record and won at the same uncanny clip. She was a buzz saw with the sharpest blades, winning 24 of her major titles in 29 opportunities (83 percent). She went 11-of-12 in championship matches in the Open Era (92 percent), when the competition and stakes were ratcheted up considerably higher.
Court is one of only five players in tennis history, joining Navratilova, Serena Williams, Emerson, and Frank Sedgman, to win a career Grand Slam in two categories, and she stands alone as the only player in history to win three calendar-year Grand Slams (one in singles, two in mixed doubles). Court won singles, doubles, and mixed doubles championships at all four majors (a career boxed-set), and only Navratilova and Doris Hart can claim the same, but Court won all 12 majors at least twice. No one in history has come remotely close to that record.
https://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/inductees/margaret-smith-court
Did you know Court won only 4 matches to win the 1964 Australian Championships? There were only 27 entrants and she received a bye in the 1st round. Serena and Steffi both had to win 7 matches to win each Open and they never received a scheduled bye. Interesting, no?
So is Carlton the GOAT of AFL football or is someone else? After all we won some flags with less than half the matches required today to win a flag.
Do you seriously contend that other clubs’ supporters agree we’re the GOAT? I’d be surprised if you could find any. You’d be on much firmer ground if you asked them whether Carlton had the most premierships alongside Essendon in the history of the VFL/AFL.
So is Carlton the GOAT of AFL football or is someone else? After all we won some flags with less than half the matches required today to win a flag.
Let's have a vote ;D
Did you know Court won only 4 matches to win the 1964 Australian Championships? There were only 27 entrants and she received a bye in the 1st round. Serena and Steffi both had to win 7 matches to win each Open and they never received a scheduled bye. Interesting, no?
But that says nothing about the opposition, with seeding many early rounds are almost practice games for top seeds. So I think it is meaningless discussing match numbers.
In the Open era, the common saying is that you can’t win it in the 1st week but you can lose it in the 1st week. In other words, you have to finish off your 1st 3 or 4 opponents quickly or you end up banged up in the 2nd week. There’s an attritional aspect to having to play 7 games in 2 weeks. The top seeds might be expected to prevail in their first matches (but Haley fell in round 1) but the consequences show up in the 2nd week. If you told the top seeds they’d have byes in the 1st 3 rounds, almost all would be overjoyed.
If you told the top seeds they’d have byes in the 1st 3 rounds, almost all would be overjoyed.
Only if they had a monopoly, if it's the same for everybody it's no advantage.
Whether a tournament starts with 200 or 20, the last few opponents are likely to be the same quality.
Back in the 50s, 60s and 70s, they use to play challenge matches, one off head to head games of the best going around at the time against the best. Not joke matches for charity like they play now, but serious events exposing the best to the best outside of an open framework. Some clubs still run formats like this to establish who's the better player, a long running format design to rank the best players. Many old world individual sports ran the same way, golf, billiards, snooker, wherever a head to head competition was found. You couldn't avoid the better opponents, you never got the luck of them being a shock omission. One of the reasons this diminished was that as the money grew players started refusing challenges, making excuses for not playing an opponent, because ranking means income. It's a pity this has subsided, because if not gamed it really does filter the best of the best.
Do you seriously contend that other clubs’ supporters agree we’re the GOAT? I’d be surprised if you could find any. You’d be on much firmer ground if you asked them whether Carlton had the most premierships alongside Essendon in the history of the VFL/AFL.
We've been rubbish for 25 years and can STILL point to the scoreboard, and they cannot say a thing about it aside from hearing the qualifications that you are telling us.
Essendon have the same number of flags, and declare themselves the greatest, even though they have won 2 fewer finals than us to get to their 16. Thing is, no one cares about that. Scoreboard says we stand on 16 premierships a piece and thats all that really matters.
Exactly. You say we can fall back on the indisputable fact we have 16 premierships but others will concede that but say we aren’t the GOAT. Likewise, Margaret Court can boast of having 24 Grand Slam titles but that doesn’t mean others aren’t the GOAT rather than her. The specific boast does not carry with it the more general boast.
Back to the tennis, I took one of my grandsons to basketball tryouts yesterday and sat next to Poo. His son was trying out too.
Poo looks fit enough to play a five setter against quality opposition but he remains another tennis player who, for whatever reason, was not able make the most of his enormous talent, athleticism and physical attributes.
But I bet he enjoyed himself immensely off the court when he was a player (in both senses). Current sport stars have far more pull than former ones. Asking a young bloke to give up the advantages of stardom and commit to a perpetual cycle of training and playing while living out of a suitcase is a big ask.
Ask Roger Federer if he thinks Rod Laver's incredible record should be downgraded because he played in a certain era. Never. You compete against whoever is put in front of you at the time. You can do no ore than that. If you enter a Grand Slam tournment with Djokovic banned, Roger injured, Rafa defeated in the second round and Tsisapas sooking it up in the corner.....and you win, Happy Days!! You're a Grand Slam champion and that's all there is to it!!
But you’re making my point for me. Laver won a paltry 11 Grand Slam titles, far fewer than Joker, Rafa & Federer. So that means he couldn’t possibly be the GOAT on Thryleon’s criterion. But he was excluded from 21 Grand Slam tournaments in his peak years because he was a professional. Credit him with even half of those titles and he’s neck and neck with them. Give him most of them, which isn’t fanciful by any means, and he would have been well ahead - Bradman compared to everyone else.
We are probably the worst club in the AFL era.
At the end of the day does it really matter who folks think is the GOAT
It comes down to personal perceptions and people's favourites.
Statistics is one aspect.
Influence and dominance is yet another.
The age of those giving an opinion is yet another.
Ask who the GOAT Carlton player, is and you'll probably get half a dozen players in the mix.
And you can almost guarantee playing statistics will have little bearing on the result.
And the result will probably be determined by which age group the majority of voters fit into.
But you’re making my point for me. Laver won a paltry 11 Grand Slam titles, far fewer than Joker, Rafa & Federer. So that means he couldn’t possibly be the GOAT on Thryleon’s criterion. But he was excluded from 21 Grand Slam tournaments in his peak years because he was a professional. Credit him with even half of those titles and he’s neck and neck with them. Give him most of them, which isn’t fanciful by any means, and he would have been well ahead - Bradman compared to everyone else.
Mav, there are few players that achieve winning all 4 majors in one year. The grand slam. Court did it twice.
Graff did it.
Navratilova did it.
Guess who failed to do it...
We are probably the worst club in the AFL era.
If you base your assessment on premierships won (which I think is the only suitable measure), we're equal eleventh in the AFL era. Clubs that haven't performed as well as we have are St Kilda, Gold Coast, GWS and Fremantle; not good company!