Goat model.
It's very neat.
10⁰
10¹
10²
10³
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, and perhaps Nadal's absolute dominance at a single slam, but if there's lesson from this model, it's appreciating these overall titles and match wins milestones.
Obviously it won't make you goat, but winning most matches or most titles in 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.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)