Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?
I think the most important thing when it comes to ranking greatness is... defining greatness.
I think the reason many people run into trouble on these sorts of topics is that they want to make everything as simple as possible and reduce complex issues into one number or some generalised idea. IMO if people really want to have meaningful discussions, they need to be a little more specific in their questioning and more flexible in the information they consider e.g. finding some measure for the quality of opposition faced in achieveing what they have.
For instance with your player A player B question, I dn't think we can really go far beyond player A being the "greater" player on grass, and player B having a game that translated well on the four surfaces. I doubt you will really be able to get agreement on anything more than that, especially when the question - who is greater doesn't have to be asked in the first place.
That's what I think at this time anyway.
Relating specifically to the question, what I mean is, you are better off asking who was more dominant in with their slams, or who was the the more dominant number one... or something to that effect - than who was greater based on weeks at number on and game translatiton on across surfaces because the latter condenses and ignores far too much to be really meaningful IMO.
Last edited by Marshmallow; Apr 30th, 2010 at 06:37 PM.