From Newsgroup: rec.sport.tennis

------=_Part_0_144322122.1754043990467
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Goat model.

It's very neat.

10=E2=81=B0
10=C2=B9
10=C2=B2
10=C2=B3


You get one point...

If you win 1 Grand Slam
If you win 10 slams
If you win 100 titles
If you win 1000 matches



Laver probably 5 or 6 pts.

Djokovic, Federer 4.

Nadal only 3 (hasn't won 100 titles).

Sampras 1.


So not ideal.

There could to be some 7543 factored in, or something to boost Wimbledon, a=
nd perhaps Nadal's absolute dominance at a single slam, but if there's less=
on from this model, it's appreciating these overall titles and match wins m= ilestones.

Obviously it won't make you goat, but winning most matches or most titles i=
n history is a big thing.


For open era Connors has both I think, and all-time it's Laver and Rosewall=
. Supposedly.


Since their careers were plagued by amateur pro split, I think recognizing = all-time historical records that they actually own and were able to achieve=
is a right thing to do.

Nobody is going to break those records since tour is structured differently=
nowadays but so what.



--=20




----Android NewsGroup Reader---- https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html ------=_Part_0_144322122.1754043990467--
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2