He was only great for some time in his fully career though.
Well, I never (nor anyone else I believe) claimed that he was. But even pre 2015 he was one of the best players, highly ranked, very consistent overall and somewhat successful (I know, he won most of the big titles after 2015...).
The point is, that simply
no male tt player was as dominant as Deng Yaping for the women was, but I do not think it is expedient to bring Deng Yaping into the discussion when the thread is obviously focused at the
men's side of this sport. It's a bit like bringing up Alexander Karelin as a reference, the russian
wrestler with only two defeats all time. Not really relevant for men's tt...
Nevertheless, I think I understand your perspective at least a little bit better now...
Of course I am aware of Ma Long's statistics in the WTTC, the WC and the Olympics (I guess many of us had looked it up - either by now or at some point in time before this thread had even started).
Even though I kind of get (?) what your main focus is, I find it strange how someone would describe Ma Long's performance at the World Cup and at the WTTC as a failure or saying that he failed too often (in general or against certain opponents) at the "big stage". His
overall performances in these tourneys are unquestionably one of the best
compared to other great players. Winning the World Cup 3x (plus 2x silver and 3x bronze).
If that's considered a failure, then Waldner (GOAT contender!) and Boll must be complete losers (Waldner won noticibly less medals, while Boll has a somewhat similar medal yield in the WC compared to Ma Long, but Boll competed about twice as often!).
Which is why I like some of the things that rain posted:
...From his second attendance in 2008 (20 yr old) to 2024(36 yr old), he reached SF every single time he attended. Not to mention the 100% winning rate in OG. So solid and consistent.
Agreed. High-level consistency is imo one of the determining factors within the GOAT discussion. Sure, Wang Hao stood in Ma Long's way a few times when he was younger, but does that mean we have to automatically put Wang Hao ahead of Ma Long? Wang Hao had enough chances to establish his own case, but he too "failed" more often than not, and, after all Ma Long has a positive H2H record against him overall. I would like to believe that most of these matches were serious and competive ones and not some beach games with hard bats...
I also like this:
WLQ: 3/8 WTTC, 0/2 OG, 0/9 WC (last attendance not reaching SF)
MLin: 0/8 WTTC, 1/2 OG, 4/8(7?) WC (last attendance not reaching SF)
WH: 1/6 WTTC, 0/3 OG, 3/8 WC (last attendance runner-up)
ZJK: 2/4 WTTC, 1/2 OG, 2/3 WC (ZJK has the best winning rate in 3 majors, with the last attendance not reaching SF)
ML: 3/8 WTTC, 2/2 OG, 3/9 WC (last attendance winner; ML is also elder than the above players when they retired)
FZD: 2/6 WTTC, 0/1 OG, 4/6 WC (last attendance not reaching SF)
ZJK's pure winning rate is indeed better than everyone else's, but mainly because of his lacking longevity. I do like him as a player, though.
Ma Long winning eight gold medals at the biggest three tournaments is not too shabby and more than anyone else on that list (plus people like Waldner, Boll, Samsonov, Kong Linghui etc.).
So, when Tony (or anyone else for that matter) questions if Ma Long is/was really that great, i. e. the GOAT,
then who else would it be, purely from an objective point of view?
Needless to say I also agree with NDH that the pure "accumulation" of medals alone is not a determining factor. In that case we could just give the GOAT title to Victor Barna...in my view he would not be "eligible", simply because he couldn't compete with modern players (modern as in "from Waldner until now"). Waldner is one of the very few, maybe the only one from the mid 80s onward, who - at his best and despite the different rule changes - could actually compete with today's top players.
For me I should mention, that it is not an
absolute clear cut case who the GOAT is. But looking at the overall picture, Ma Long comes out on top eventually. It's just tough to argue against him, i. e. his case, considering what he has achieved in his career and put someone else on top of him. Who could that be?
Ma Long has an impressive resume, no question, but it has some dents here and there, that were already discussed (not peaking earlier and beating rivals in important matches). I'm aware of it and surely don't deny them. But looking at the resumes of other GOAT contenders, they contain more and deeper dents which imo prevent them from "dethroning" Ma Long, at least as of right now (May 2024). FZD will have a tough time to get where Ma Long is, and WCQ will also have to win a lot the next few years in order to get into the conversation (he does already have a slight H2H advantage over Ma Long, if I'm not mistaken...). He, WCQ, might have an easier path, because the level of the newest chinese generation is indeed not too overwhelming compared to previous ones. A valid point that Tony made in that regard.
I for myself find the generation from the 2000s (WH, MLin, WL) and the one from the 2010s (ML, ZJK and XX) about equally strong, although XX is lacking success in the singles; he wasn't a walkover either.
"World Champs
Ma Long took part in 7 and ONLY winning 3
greatness ratio of 3/7 = 42.8%?"
Lmao, then he should have won 7/7 to be greatest?
Right, it is a bit presumptuous to expect from a player like Ma Long to have a better (or even a perfect) resume when pretty much no one else of his peers has something better to offer in the big picture.
I guess I just dislike when statistics are "distorted" and presented in a way that it seems that the involved player/athlete somehow underperformed, even if he is a record or co-record holder in that specific area.
Imagine on a tennis forum someone criticising Roger Federer for winning Wimbledon "only" eight times (Well, he didn't win it the other 14 times he competed. 8/22. Winning percentage: 36,36 %. What a loser...).
Pete Sampras never won the French Open. That was his big achilles heel. You still won't find too many people in the tennis world who would say that Sampras is not one of the greatest players ever, even though he completely failed at the French Open. Maybe he is/was not on the level of Nadal, Federer or Djokovic, but still easily Top 10 all time. I fact, before the arrival of the aforementioned "Big Three", it was Sampras who was widely considered to be the greatest ever, ahead of people like Laver (Grand Slam in one year), Agassi (career Grand Slam), Borg, McEnroe, Conners, Becker etc., and despite his disastrous French Open resume.
As for Tony: I understand why he hesitates to call Ma Long the GOAT and I accept his sentiment: Not peaking/dominating earlier and not beating certain rivals in some important matches, while later dominating in a (supposedly) and slightly weaker(?) era. Be that as it may. Nobody is perfect. He did what he could and he won a lot. It's a close call for sure, but I just can't put aynone else ahead of him (for now).
