PDA

View Full Version : Is Federer the GOAT (yes/no)?


Pages : [1] 2

Bud
05-13-2009, 12:37 AM
Simple poll... yes or no

No other explanation/evidence/justification required (although welcome) :wink:

Safinator_1
05-13-2009, 12:37 AM
poll? 10 chars

Bud
05-13-2009, 12:38 AM
poll? 10 chars

Dang... you're impatient! :shock:

:grin:

iamgoat
05-13-2009, 12:55 AM
ye bro Fo Sho.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 01:01 AM
If he gets to 14 slams, I would say yes. Otherwise, no.

sh@de
05-13-2009, 01:01 AM
Yes. 10 chars.

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:03 AM
If he gets to 14 slams, I would say yes. Otherwise, no.

This is a snapshot at this point in time.

Therefore, you must vote your conscience... which is No :lol:

aphex
05-13-2009, 01:05 AM
This is a snapshot at this point in time.

Therefore, you must vote your conscience... which is No :lol:

i don't see that option...where do i vote "my conscience"?

Pirao
05-13-2009, 01:06 AM
This is a snapshot at this point in time.

Therefore, you must vote your conscience... which is No :lol:

Yes, as of right now he is not IMO, but his career has not finished yet, that's why I said what I said.

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:07 AM
Yes, as of right now he is not IMO, but his career has not finished yet, that's why I said what I said.

Cool.... then vote No :)

helloworld
05-13-2009, 01:10 AM
LOL!!!! Some people actually voted yes. :D I guess that makes Nadal the daddy of GOAT then. :D

Pirao
05-13-2009, 01:10 AM
Cool.... then vote No :)

Why should I? :)

aphex
05-13-2009, 01:13 AM
LOL!!!! Some people actually voted yes. :D I guess that makes Nadal the daddy of GOAT then. :D

why don't you start a thread and see how many people vote nadal the goat then?

gj011
05-13-2009, 01:14 AM
Of course not. Not even close or disputable.

No one with any knowledge of tennis history or who follows tennis longer than 5 years can claim in right mind that Federer is the GOAT. There are several much greater players than him.

mandy01
05-13-2009, 01:14 AM
its a personal thing.Firstly ,I dont know if,realistically,there is a GOAT in tennis in the first place.

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:16 AM
why don't you start a thread and see how many people vote nadal the goat then?

No need for such a thread... it would be premature.

aphex
05-13-2009, 01:21 AM
Of course not. Not even close or disputable.

No one with any knowledge of tennis history or who follows tennis longer than 5 years can claim in right mind that Federer is the GOAT. There are several much greater players than him.

such as djokovic, amirite?

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:21 AM
Why should I? :)

Because... at this point in time you stated you don't think he's the GOAT.

How's that reason? :)

Pirao
05-13-2009, 01:25 AM
Because... at this point in time you stated you don't think he's the GOAT.

How's that reason? :)

I have, but I also have explained what I think, and I don't like either option. So I won't vote :).

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:29 AM
I have, but I also have explained what I think, and I don't like either option. So I won't vote :).

You could break the current tie :idea:

Pirao
05-13-2009, 01:30 AM
You could break the current tie :idea:

Ok, then I'll vote lol.

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:34 AM
Ok, then I'll vote lol.

A man of integrity :)

Cenc
05-13-2009, 01:37 AM
pathetic, i just waited for it to come up
well no he isnt the greatest of all times
take a look at all the most important statistics and no, he isnt
- slams, years as n1, wimbledons, year-end-cups, total tournament wins, score with 1, 2 or 3 biggest rivals, davis cup
i just dont see anything that would make him the goat
but will be fun to see what people say

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:44 AM
pathetic, i just waited for it to come up
well no he isnt the greatest of all times
take a look at all the most important statistics and no, he isnt
- slams, years as n1, wimbledons, year-end-cups, total tournament wins, score with 1, 2 or 3 biggest rivals, davis cup
i just dont see anything that would make him the goat
but will be fun to see what people say

I wanted to create a nice simple yes/no poll... as a snapshot at this point in time... since I've been hearing more people already claiming he's THE GOAT... yet he barely has any unique achievements to his name.

So, what unique achievement(s) has Federer accomplished that places him head and shoulders above his peers, past and present?

A GOAT would have several such achievements.

Please list these achievements for those who believe Federer is the current and undisputed GOAT.

Dutch-Guy
05-13-2009, 01:46 AM
This "GOAT" debat is subjective but let me give it a go:If he breaks Sampras record,wins RG by beating Rafa and has a good h2h againt Rafa,then a big YES.Until then...

Pirao
05-13-2009, 01:49 AM
A man of integrity :)

:mrgreen::mrgreen:

Bud
05-13-2009, 01:51 AM
This "GOAT" debat is subjective but let me give it a go:If he breaks Sampras record,wins RG by beating Rafa and has a good h2h againt Rafa,then a big YES.Until then...

Thank you... this is what I seek to determine in this thread.

luckyboy1300
05-13-2009, 02:52 AM
I wanted to create a nice simple yes/no poll... as a snapshot at this point in time... since I've been hearing more people already claiming he's THE GOAT... yet he barely has any unique achievements to his name.

So, what unique achievement(s) has Federer accomplished that places him head and shoulders above his peers, past and present?

A GOAT would have several such achievements.

Please list these achievements for those who believe Federer is the current and undisputed GOAT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Records_held_by_Roger_Federer

plus having a playing style that is the most exciting to watch (for me anyways)

although i wouldn't say he's the undisputed GOAT, because there's no undisputed GOAT. what's important for me is what i think, and i think he's the GOAT.

sh@de
05-13-2009, 03:27 AM
Your thread asked if I think he is. I certainly do, given his achievements and his play style. Although he doesn't really hold that many records, I think the fact that he is close to all the records makes him GOAT. Just my opinion.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 09:32 AM
If he gets to 14 slams, I would say yes. Otherwise, no.

And has a complete turnaround against Nadal (edging past him in h2h) then he cannot possibly be GOAT. Think of all the players that people talk about when GOAT conversation comes up and they will all at least be the best player of their own generation. Nadal owns him and always did. He cannot be the GOAT if he is not even the best player of his generation and Nadal is in his ERA.

Azzurri
05-13-2009, 09:35 AM
Of course not. Not even close or disputable.

No one with any knowledge of tennis history or who follows tennis longer than 5 years can claim in right mind that Federer is the GOAT. There are several much greater players than him.

Agreed. If someone where to say what were the greatest 3 years of any one player's career, then I would go for Fed's 05-7 years as the best I have ever seen, but overall he is not GOAT.

Pirao
05-13-2009, 09:42 AM
And has a complete turnaround against Nadal (edging past him in h2h) then he cannot possibly be GOAT. Think of all the players that people talk about when GOAT conversation comes up and they will all at least be the best player of their own generation. Nadal owns him and always did. He cannot be the GOAT if he is not even the best player of his generation and Nadal is in his ERA.

I don't count his H2H against Nadal like demerit from Roger, but merit for Nadal, so I don't care what their H2H is for the GOAT discussion. You're free to do it if you think it's determinating though.

crazylevity
05-13-2009, 09:45 AM
I wanted to create a nice simple yes/no poll... as a snapshot at this point in time... since I've been hearing more people already claiming he's THE GOAT... yet he barely has any unique achievements to his name.

So, what unique achievement(s) has Federer accomplished that places him head and shoulders above his peers, past and present?

A GOAT would have several such achievements.

Please list these achievements for those who believe Federer is the current and undisputed GOAT.

Most consecutive weeks at No.1.

3 our of 4 slams for three different years.

Most Wimbledon-US Open titles in the same year.

Longest hard court winning streak.

Longest GS semi-finals/finals streak.

There are plenty. But the one record that matters above all these is the number of majors. Which Federer hasn't achieved.

Whether Federer is the GOAT is very debatable, but I think peak Fed, at his best, is the BOAT. (Best of all time) He has the most complete tennis skillset of any player ever, in my humble opinion. Though Laver fans will give me a run for my money.

Bud
05-13-2009, 09:51 AM
Most consecutive weeks at No.1.

3 our of 4 slams for three different years.

Most Wimbledon-US Open titles in the same year.

Longest hard court winning streak.

Longest GS semi-finals/finals streak.

There are plenty. But the one record that matters above all these is the number of majors. Which Federer hasn't achieved.

Whether Federer is the GOAT is very debatable, but I think peak Fed, at his best, is the BOAT. (Best of all time) He has the most complete tennis skillset of any player ever, in my humble opinion. Though Laver fans will give me a run for my money.

OK... why BOAT and not GOAT? :?

Wouldn't the Best and Greatest be the same, in this case?

tudwell
05-13-2009, 09:59 AM
Federer needs more time at number 1. That's what defines greatness. When you're number 1, you're the best. The exact level of dominance comes into play, too (is he barely number 1 or dominating everyone in his path?). Slam count doesn't matter much to me. He could win 1 slam a year - staying at number 2 - until he's forty, and that wouldn't move him up on my GOAT list.

crazylevity
05-13-2009, 10:11 AM
OK... why BOAT and not GOAT? :?

Wouldn't the Best and Greatest be the same, in this case?

Greatest can only be defined by objective measures, i.e. achievements. Best is defined more subjectively, and takes into account style of play, the ease with which seemingly impossible shots are produced, etc.

Honestly, if I had to pick someone to play across eras, across surfaces, to play with other GOAT contenders, I'd pick Federer. He can S&V (Wimbledon 2001), is extremely competent on fast surfaces (5 Wimbledons, numerous indoor hardcourt/carpet titles, Masters Cup titles on indoor), he can play on clay (2nd only to Nadal for a number of years; came close in Rome, broke his clay streak at Hamburg), he is one of the greatest baseliners ever, etc. Like I said, his skillset appears to be the most complete, in my opinion. He may not be as brutally consistent as Nadal, or have the greatest attacking game like Sampras. But he's very very competent (at his best) at both offense and defense, at both baselining and at net, and on all surfaces. Thus he has the most complete skillset, and that to me makes him the BOAT.

Bud
05-13-2009, 10:14 AM
Greatest can only be defined by objective measures, i.e. achievements. Best is defined more subjectively, and takes into account style of play, the ease with which seemingly impossible shots are produced, etc.

Honestly, if I had to pick someone to play across eras, across surfaces, to play with other GOAT contenders, I'd pick Federer. He can S&V (Wimbledon 2001), is extremely competent on fast surfaces (5 Wimbledons, numerous indoor hardcourt/carpet titles, Masters Cup titles on indoor), he can play on clay (2nd only to Nadal for a number of years; came close in Rome, broke his clay streak at Hamburg), he is one of the greatest baseliners ever, etc. Like I said, his skillset appears to be the most complete, in my opinion. He may not be as brutally consistent as Nadal, or have the greatest attacking game like Sampras. But he's very very competent (at his best) at both offense and defense, at both baselining and at net, and on all surfaces. Thus he has the most complete skillset, and that to me makes him the BOAT.

K... thanks for defining it :)

380pistol
05-13-2009, 10:37 AM
Agreed. If someone where to say what were the greatest 3 years of any one player's career, then I would go for Fed's 05-7 years as the best I have ever seen, but overall he is not GOAT.

Nah... Roger's greatest 3 years??? 2004-06. His 2004 > His 2007. Anyway he has a case, but there are some holes on his resume.

Cyan
05-13-2009, 10:48 AM
No. Laver is. Period.

maximo
05-13-2009, 10:50 AM
No, but it aint Sampras either.


wonder what GameSampras is gonna say about that...

Cesc Fabregas
05-13-2009, 10:56 AM
No, but it aint Sampras either.


wonder what GameSampras is gonna say about that...

Murray is the GOAT isn't he:roll:.

maximo
05-13-2009, 10:57 AM
Murray is the GOAT isn't he:roll:.

How can he be the GOAT if he hasn't even reached his peak?

btw, your sig is a joke.

matchmaker
05-13-2009, 10:57 AM
no GOAT without FO

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 11:05 AM
Of course not. Not even close or disputable.

No one with any knowledge of tennis history or who follows tennis longer than 5 years can claim in right mind that Federer is the GOAT. There are several much greater players than him.

That's right, Donald Young, Vince Spadea, and Robin Soderling are all in a tight race for GOAT. Fed is far behind them.:twisted:

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:07 AM
no GOAT without FO

right
so my vote goes to gaudio

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 11:13 AM
no GOAT without FO

I guess that makes Nadal the GOAT, because he's never lost the French.:twisted::twisted:

NickC
05-13-2009, 11:21 AM
Yes he is.

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 11:57 AM
No.. Not even close to being the GOAT. Nadal has destroyed and continues to destroy his legacy.

jimbo333
05-13-2009, 02:53 PM
LAVER is the GOAT, this has been proved in many other threads:)

tennis-hero
05-13-2009, 02:56 PM
LOL!!!! Some people actually voted yes. :D I guess that makes Nadal the daddy of GOAT then. :D

Does that make Nalbandian the GOAT daddies, grandaddy

;)

JoshDragon
05-13-2009, 03:21 PM
LAVER is the GOAT, this has been proved in many other threads:)

Laver, hasn't been proven as the GOAT. No one has. That's why there are all of these threads about who the GOAT is.

helloworld
05-13-2009, 03:23 PM
Does that make Nalbandian the GOAT daddies, grandaddy

;)

Does Nalbandian own Nadal 13-6?? :confused:

vtmike
05-13-2009, 03:40 PM
No.. Not even close to being the GOAT. Nadal has destroyed and continues to destroy his legacy.

LMAO!!! :lol: I sense frustration... ;)

http://www.codeodor.com/images/frustrated.jpg

GoaLaSSo
05-13-2009, 03:51 PM
Murray is the GOAT isn't he:roll:.

ha ha i like your sig. I would personally stick fabregas in there tho instead of eboue.

Based on achievements, its arguable, but i would say he is in the open era.
He may not be the same but a year or two ago if you didn't hear about federer winning it was weird.

jimbo333
05-13-2009, 04:02 PM
Laver, hasn't been proven as the GOAT. No one has. That's why there are all of these threads about who the GOAT is.

LAVER has been proved to be the GOAT:)

There are all these threads because some people will not accept it, even after they have lost the argument:):)

Safinator_1
05-13-2009, 04:06 PM
For me no atm but i believe he can become the GOAT. I sure have alot more confidence in him getting it than Rafa lol. I don't want to define GOAT who is the most overall in all records that does not do justice for me. Undisputed GOAT has to beat all records and be complete to me in all aspects, no. of slams, excellent h2h, no. of weeks no.1, total dominance of era etc.

Yes Fed is probably near complete but near is not good enough for me. I take GOAT as undisputed and Fed is not so to me Fed is NOT the GOAT

aphex
05-13-2009, 04:25 PM
Does Nalbandian own Nadal 13-6?? :confused:

do u mean slams? no.

West Coast Ace
05-13-2009, 04:46 PM
Yes, as of right now he is not IMO, but his career has not finished yet, that's why I said what I said.My feelings too.

There are reasons to wait a little to make him fully pass Laver. But it's inevitable. He's more athletic; deeper fields; the ball moves a lot faster given the modern technology. And he's not losing to George Bastl yet! :)

TheNatural
05-13-2009, 05:04 PM
Simple poll... yes or No
No other explanation/evidence/justification required (although welcome) :wink:

I'm treating this Poll as meaning the "GOAT" of his own era. ;-)

helloworld
05-13-2009, 05:05 PM
do u mean slams? no.

Does Nalbandian own Nadal 5-2 in slam finals?? :confused:

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 05:17 PM
Most achieved and GOAT are two different concepts IMO. One is objectively provided by pure statistics in the concept of differentiated eras. The other is just a pie in the sky opinion based on what u deem is most important and usually is more subjective than not.

You can prove "most achieved" with numbers. The GOAT you cant IMO

jimbo333
05-13-2009, 05:22 PM
Well until Federer has retired, you just can't judge his whole career. He may turn out to be the GOAT (I doubt it), but he certainly isn't at the moment!!!

LAVER is the GOAT:)

ronalditop
05-13-2009, 05:59 PM
If he goes back to play like he used to and beat nadal till he doesnt have a losing record against him, then he will be the goat.

GameSampras
05-13-2009, 06:01 PM
]If he goes back to play like he used to and beat [/B]nadal till he doesnt have a losing record against him, then he will be the goat.

He did. The 2008 USO.. Of course he stole the title by bribing the ATP officials to create a rain while he gets a vacation before the finals while the winner of Murray and Nadal has to play 3 days in row. He stole it but he still got it I guess

Tennis_Monk
05-13-2009, 07:09 PM
Fed is a better candidate for GOAT than Sampras.

helloworld
05-13-2009, 08:05 PM
Fed is a better candidate for GOAT than Sampras.

Does Fed have more slams than Sampras? Does Fed have more year-end #1 than Sampras? Does Fed have more weeks at #1 than Sampras? Does Fed have more Wimbledon than Sampras? Does Fed have French Open title? Fed's resume is basically a mini version of Sampras.

TheNatural
05-13-2009, 08:09 PM
Ok, everyone knows Fed is a long way behind some other goat contenders.

So the poll results prove that *******s are as deluded as Fed himself.:shock:

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-13-2009, 08:57 PM
Does Fed have more slams than Sampras? Does Fed have more year-end #1 than Sampras? Does Fed have more weeks at #1 than Sampras? Does Fed have more Wimbledon than Sampras? Does Fed have French Open title? Fed's resume is basically a mini version of Sampras.

Does Sampras have the most consecutive weeks as #1?
Does Sampras have even one French Open final?
Does Sampras have more masters titles?
Does Sampras have more consecutive Wimbledons?
Does Sampras have more consecutive USO?
Does Sampras have a year end winning percentage of 88% or more?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive grass matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive hard matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS semi-finals appearances?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS finals appearances?

Want me to add more? Sampras's resume is a micro version of Federer's.

thalivest
05-13-2009, 09:01 PM
Does Fed have more slams than Sampras? Does Fed have more year-end #1 than Sampras? Does Fed have more weeks at #1 than Sampras? Does Fed have more Wimbledon than Sampras? Does Fed have French Open title? Fed's resume is basically a mini version of Sampras.

I agree. Doing better at the French Open also means nothing when you cant win it. If Federer had won the French Open I would agree that is a big difference but since he didnt it really doesnt matter.

helloworld
05-13-2009, 09:01 PM
Does Sampras have the most consecutive weeks as #1?
Does Sampras have even one French Open final?
Does Sampras have more masters titles?
Does Sampras have more consecutive Wimbledons?
Does Sampras have more consecutive USO?
Does Sampras have a year end winning percentage of 88% or more?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive grass matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive hard matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS semi-finals appearances?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS finals appearances?

Want me to add more? Sampras's resume is a micro version of Federer's.

Relying on those lesser stats is a clear indication that your boy is inferior to Mr. Pete. ;)

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 09:16 PM
Does Sampras have the most consecutive weeks as #1?
Does Sampras have even one French Open final?
Does Sampras have more masters titles?
Does Sampras have more consecutive Wimbledons?
Does Sampras have more consecutive USO?
Does Sampras have a year end winning percentage of 88% or more?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive grass matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive hard matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS semi-finals appearances?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS finals appearances?

Want me to add more? Sampras's resume is a micro version of Federer's.

Depending on which stats you choose this debate can be skewed either way.
Besides Sampras has the better looking wife.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-13-2009, 09:18 PM
Relying on those lesser stats is a clear indication that your boy is inferior to Mr. Pete. ;) Lol of course anything Sampras didn't do is inferior to suit you. Btw did I mention it took Federer only 12 years to do all this and still counting...

Antonio Puente
05-13-2009, 09:30 PM
GOAT? The chubbies say, YES! Fed = greatest chubby-chaser EVER!

Go Fed! Yay!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2NEuKgGJyMU/SeNiZvIuQWI/AAAAAAAAH08/dbOZ7sFuINI/s400/fat-

veroniquem
05-13-2009, 09:37 PM
LOL!!!! Some people actually voted yes. :D I guess that makes Nadal the daddy of GOAT then. :D
Nadal will be the superGOAT :)

flying24
05-13-2009, 09:42 PM
Nadal will be the superGOAT :)

The funny thing is he probably will be.

veroniquem
05-13-2009, 09:55 PM
Does Sampras have the most consecutive weeks as #1? Does Federer have the most weeks as #1? No
Does Federer have the most year ends at #1? No
Does Sampras have even one French Open final? Has Federer even won one French Open final? No
Does Sampras have more masters titles? Does Federer have the most master titles? No
Does Sampras have more consecutive Wimbledons? Does Federer have the most Wimbledon titles? No
Does Sampras have more consecutive USO? Does Federer have more USO titles than Sampras? No
Does Sampras have a year end winning percentage of 88% or more? Does Federer have the best career winning percentage? No
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive grass matches won? Does Federer have the record for most consecutive matches on 1 surface? No Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive hard matches won? See above.
Does Federer have the most titles on hard court? No
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS semi-finals appearances? Does Federer have the record for most slams won? No
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS finals appearances? See above.
Last question: is Federer the GOAT? No

Want me to add more? Sampras's resume is a micro version of Federer's.

Yes, please add more, this is fun!

dugger5688
05-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Oh boy, I'm new here but this is going to get ugly fast, isn't it?

380pistol
05-13-2009, 10:00 PM
Yes, please add more, this is fun!

By all means. Now the question is...

Did anyone own Sampras??? Hell no!!!!!!!!

Does anyone own Federer??? You all can answer that.

Bloodshed
05-13-2009, 10:06 PM
Fed's story unfortunately is a sad one:

The main reason why I say this is because, Fed could of been easily the GOAT of all time. He just happened to run into Nadal at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Look at what he should of accomplished but didn't:

Fed has currently 13 GS,14 MS and 4 YEC

Fed from 2005-2007 Won AO, Wimbledon and USO. He was also the finalist of RG in all of those 3 years.

If it wasn't for Nadal, Fed would of completed the Calendar Grand Slam 3 Years in a row (something not even Rod Laver would of been able to accomplish) so that would of given him 16 GS (which beats Sampras' record)

Fed has met Nadal twice in Monte-Carlo, once in Rome and twice in Hamburg. He managed to defeat Nadal back in Hamburg 07, but if he would of had anyone else, he would of procured those 4 other MS which would of given him a total of 18 MS (beating Agassi's record)

Oh let's not forget Nadal ruined Fed's chances of breaking Borg's record of consecutive Wimbledons last year by losing to Nadal.

Federer met a certain hot Nalby in YEC 06 and he blew his chance to win his fifth YEC (which would of tied Sampras and Lendl)

And he was #1 for 233 weeks. If it wasn't for Nadal being close behind him all those years, he'd still be #1 and would of broken Sampras number of weeks being #1.

Sad story for Fed. He should of broken all records and instead he's not known a GOAT anymore.

Fed could of complete the unthinkable.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-13-2009, 10:11 PM
Yes, please add more, this is fun! I like how you compare Federer to records that are the best ever especially as he is so close to many of them. I also like how you try to downplay Federer's achievements when I could easily do the same with Nadal.

Also veroniquem you may be a troll but you are not that bad because wasn't it you that said Federer was the closest to being the GOAT out of all the players that have ever played?

Btw 380pistol Sampras was owned by everyone on clay.

380pistol
05-13-2009, 10:16 PM
Btw 380pistol Sampras was owned by everyone on clay.

Names please???

BorisBeckerFan
05-13-2009, 10:17 PM
To Chelsea_Kiwi,
In a previous post you asked me if I knew anything about tennis. I make no claims to be an expert but I did respond to your question and gave a brief summary of my experience.

Would you please share what got you into tennis and shed some light on your tennis knowledge? I am not trying to bate you or challenge you to a tennis knowledge contest. Just wanted to know more about you.




In all honesty I know very little about tennis prior to the 80's. I logged in countless hours watching matches since the early 80's. I also work from home and tennis is on around the clock. It's been several years since Iv'e missed a Fed match and those have been due to a recorder malfunction. Recently I've started to get real down on Fed and realised I should have been enjoying Sampras's play when he was palying. I hated watching him succeed after all the times he jacked up Boris Becker yet I still watched hundreds of Pete's matches to try and mold my game. I played tennis as a junior at good enough level to qualify for state finals at the 16 and under level and other tournaments where you have to qualify to get into. I never did well enough to think I could go pro despite my parents having spent thousands of dollars on coaching ever since I was a child. I gave up on playing tennis seriously and decided to play in highschool for fun. We won our district and I was the number one player on our team my senior year. I had a slighty better than 500 hundred record but I'd have to find and dust off the old year book to say exactly what my record was. I won against the lesser to average players and got handed some major beat downs by some of the better players. I am in my thirities and play around 3 to 4 times a weak. I am overweight and slow so despite having solid strokes I can't keep up solid footwork for long and my game suffers. I've taken lessons for over 20 years (12 of those consistently) and take a lot of joy in playing. I will say I just recently played with a Teaching Pro from Saddlebrook and handed him 6-1 beat down. He wasn't expecting a short fat guy like me to know what I was doing on the court but let's just say I won't be taking lessons from him anymore. I am a huge fan of the tennis Boris Becker played and eventhough I had already been watching tennis for a while I didn't really fall in love with tennis until I saw Boris Play.

Cenc
05-13-2009, 10:53 PM
Fed's story unfortunately is a sad one:

The main reason why I say this is because, Fed could of been easily the GOAT of all time. He just happened to run into Nadal at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Look at what he should of accomplished but didn't:

Fed has currently 13 GS,14 MS and 4 YEC

Fed from 2005-2007 Won AO, Wimbledon and USO. He was also the finalist of RG in all of those 3 years.

If it wasn't for Nadal, Fed would of completed the Calendar Grand Slam 3 Years in a row (something not even Rod Laver would of been able to accomplish) so that would of given him 16 GS (which beats Sampras' record)

Fed has met Nadal twice in Monte-Carlo, once in Rome and twice in Hamburg. He managed to defeat Nadal back in Hamburg 07, but if he would of had anyone else, he would of procured those 4 other MS which would of given him a total of 18 MS (beating Agassi's record)

Oh let's not forget Nadal ruined Fed's chances of breaking Borg's record of consecutive Wimbledons last year by losing to Nadal.

Federer met a certain hot Nalby in YEC 06 and he blew his chance to win his fifth YEC (which would of tied Sampras and Lendl)

And he was #1 for 233 weeks. If it wasn't for Nadal being close behind him all those years, he'd still be #1 and would of broken Sampras number of weeks being #1.

Sad story for Fed. He should of broken all records and instead he's not known a GOAT anymore.

Fed could of complete the unthinkable.


yeah sure, just without nadal
well in fact if he played each of his matches against my grandpa he would never lose a point, imagine that lol

so now, even though this era is really weak ur still complaining?
he had ONE SERIOUS OPPONENT during his dominance and EVEN THIS IS TOO MUCH? sampras had like 15 and he wasnt owned by any of them
i dont understand u guys really lol

thalivest
05-13-2009, 10:57 PM
yeah sure, just without nadal
well in fact if he played each of his matches against my grandpa he would never lose a point, imagine that lol

so now, even though this era is really weak ur still complaining?
he had ONE SERIOUS OPPONENT during his dominance and EVEN THIS IS TOO MUCH? sampras had like 15 and he wasnt owned by any of them
i dont understand u guys really lol

Sampras had 15 serious opponents!? So who are you counting now as serious opponents if you count that many- Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, Petr Korda, Cedric Pioline, LOL!

Cenc
05-13-2009, 10:57 PM
Does Sampras have the most consecutive weeks as #1?
Does Sampras have even one French Open final?
Does Sampras have more masters titles?
Does Sampras have more consecutive Wimbledons?
Does Sampras have more consecutive USO?
Does Sampras have a year end winning percentage of 88% or more?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive grass matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive hard matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS semi-finals appearances?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS finals appearances?

Want me to add more? Sampras's resume is a micro version of Federer's.

looking at those stats i wanna ask u:
1) what is more important: consecutive weeks as number 1 or years as number 1 + total weeks as n1?
2) what is more important french opens or wimbledons?
3) what is more important masters titles or slam titles?
4) what is more important consecutive grass court match wins or number of wimbledons?
5) what is more important consecutive semi-final appearances or titles?
i could go on but its kinda stupid
showing those ridiculous stats just shows how miserable fedfans are...

Bloodshed
05-13-2009, 10:59 PM
yeah sure, just without nadal
well in fact if he played each of his matches against my grandpa he would never lose a point, imagine that lol

so now, even though this era is really weak ur still complaining?
he had ONE SERIOUS OPPONENT during his dominance and EVEN THIS IS TOO MUCH? sampras had like 15 and he wasnt owned by any of them
i dont understand u guys really lol

I'm not complaining really. I just wish Federer would of played differently everytime he met Nadal on Clay (easier said than done) but Nadal on his own destroyed Fed's chance of becoming the GOAT. That's what I was trying to say.

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:04 PM
Sampras had 15 serious opponents!? So who are you counting now as serious opponents if you count that many- Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Marcelo Rios, Petr Korda, Cedric Pioline, LOL!

kafelnikov rios and korda are better than murray so... pioline isnt far as well
but lets see:
agassi, becker, edberg, courier, ivanisevic, moya, kuerten, rafter, krajicek, kafelnikov, bruguera, chang, stich, muster, corretja

see, even without those u mentioned (except kafelnikov, 2 time slam champion) i managed to find 15
fedfans just cant win a single argument, so sad

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:05 PM
I'm not complaining really. I just wish Federer would of played differently everytime he met Nadal on Clay (easier said than done) but Nadal on his own destroyed Fed's chance of becoming the GOAT. That's what I was trying to say.

k, sry
but really... its way too much that ONE PERSON can destroy someones career, this shouldnt happen to someone who should be the GOAT...

thalivest
05-13-2009, 11:09 PM
kafelnikov rios and korda are better than murray so...

Haha what a joke. Murray has already reached the same # of slam finals Rios the flake did his whole career. Rios is by far the biggest joke #1 in history, that is all. Kafelnikov didnt win a Masters title his whole career and had joke draws to his 2 slams. He never once had a big win in a slam. He was dominated his whole career by Thomas Johansson, a teenage Hewitt, and others. He is also the second worst #1 ever after only Rios. Murray at 22 already has 3 Masters titles. Korda was injured most of his career.


agassi, becker, edberg, courier, ivanisevic, moya, kuerten, rafter, krajicek, kafelnikov, bruguera, chang, stich, muster, corretja

Yeah like all those were ever playing well at the same time. Like Bruguera, Corrjeta, Muster, were big threats outside of clay. You are funny. If we talk about just the whole decade we could say in the 2000s it was:

Kuerten, Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Nadal, Federer, Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Kafelnikov, Moya, Rafter, Coria, Murray, Djokovic, Safin, Nalbandian. See how easy that was.

fedfans just cant win a single argument, so sad

ROTFL!!! I cant even stand Federer you clown.

veroniquem
05-13-2009, 11:13 PM
I like how you compare Federer to records that are the best ever especially as he is so close to many of them. I also like how you try to downplay Federer's achievements when I could easily do the same with Nadal.

Also veroniquem you may be a troll but you are not that bad because wasn't it you that said Federer was the closest to being the GOAT out of all the players that have ever played?

Btw 380pistol Sampras was owned by everyone on clay.
Being the closest also means not being "it". He did come close but unless he can do better, he doesn't hold any of the records to become officially the GOAT.
I have never claimed that Nadal was the GOAT right now. I do believe that Nadal is not done breaking records but we'll have to wait a few more years to make a definitive statement about his career.
Do I believe Nadal has the potential for becoming the GOAT one day? Yes I do, he definitely has a chance.

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:20 PM
Haha what a joke. Murray has already reached the same # of slam finals Rios the flake did his whole career. Rios is by far the biggest joke #1 in history, that is all. Kafelnikov didnt win a Masters title his whole career and had joke draws to his 2 slams. He never once had a big win in a slam. He was dominated his whole career by Thomas Johansson, a teenage Hewitt, and others. He is also the second worst #1 ever after only Rios. Murray at 22 already has 3 Masters titles. Korda was injured most of his career.




Yeah like all those were ever playing well at the same time. Like Bruguera, Corrjeta, Muster, were big threats outside of clay. You are funny. If we talk about just the whole decade we could say in the 2000s it was:

Kuerten, Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Nadal, Federer, Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Kafelnikov, Moya, Rafter, Coria, Murray, Djokovic, Safin, Nalbandian. See how easy that was.



ROTFL!!! I cant even stand Federer you clown.

its impressive
all you are capable of doing is insulting and u never ever gave a serious argument
1) all those players' primes were in 90s and sampras was the dominant player back then
2) ur mentioning coria and nalbandian
3) kafelnikov, rios and korda were excellent players, murray isnt, today only federer and nadal are excellent players, djoko is near them, murray would be lets say top 20 in 90s, just look at the power and length of his shots
4) 2 slams are obviously more than nothing right?
5) do u remember the uso quaters 1996 sampras vs corretja? oh, no u didnt follow tennis back then, u started in 2005, sry

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:23 PM
Being the closest also means not being "it". He did come close but unless he can do better, he doesn't hold any of the records to become officially the GOAT.
I have never claimed that Nadal was the GOAT right now. I do believe that Nadal is not done breaking records but we'll have to wait a few more years to make a definitive statement about his career.
Do I believe Nadal has the potential for becoming the GOAT one day? Yes I do, he definitely has a chance.

sure he does, nadals best game isnt far from feds best game what he showed several times didnt he (asking fedfanboys)?
and since tennis isnt extremely strong nowadays even though stronger than in time of feds dominance, if nadal avoids injuries i wouldnt be surprised if he reaches 15-20 slams
really

veroniquem
05-13-2009, 11:31 PM
Fed's story unfortunately is a sad one:

The main reason why I say this is because, Fed could of been easily the GOAT of all time. He just happened to run into Nadal at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Look at what he should of accomplished but didn't:

Fed has currently 13 GS,14 MS and 4 YEC

Fed from 2005-2007 Won AO, Wimbledon and USO. He was also the finalist of RG in all of those 3 years.

If it wasn't for Nadal, Fed would of completed the Calendar Grand Slam 3 Years in a row (something not even Rod Laver would of been able to accomplish) so that would of given him 16 GS (which beats Sampras' record)

Fed has met Nadal twice in Monte-Carlo, once in Rome and twice in Hamburg. He managed to defeat Nadal back in Hamburg 07, but if he would of had anyone else, he would of procured those 4 other MS which would of given him a total of 18 MS (beating Agassi's record)

Oh let's not forget Nadal ruined Fed's chances of breaking Borg's record of consecutive Wimbledons last year by losing to Nadal.

Federer met a certain hot Nalby in YEC 06 and he blew his chance to win his fifth YEC (which would of tied Sampras and Lendl)

And he was #1 for 233 weeks. If it wasn't for Nadal being close behind him all those years, he'd still be #1 and would of broken Sampras number of weeks being #1.

Sad story for Fed. He should of broken all records and instead he's not known a GOAT anymore.

Fed could of complete the unthinkable.
The story is actually a happy one, it's the happy story of a player (Nadal) who was so supremely talented he was able to outdo the player who was being hailed (prematurely) as the best of all time.
It's the story of a well deserved triumph, it's a moralistic story about not giving up and beating the odds. It's an optimistic story in which the underdog got the upper hand, the challenger won the challenge, the pauper became the prince. Heck it's almost a fairy tale!

abmk
05-13-2009, 11:33 PM
Greatest can only be defined by objective measures, i.e. achievements. Best is defined more subjectively, and takes into account style of play, the ease with which seemingly impossible shots are produced, etc.

Honestly, if I had to pick someone to play across eras, across surfaces, to play with other GOAT contenders, I'd pick Federer. He can S&V (Wimbledon 2001), is extremely competent on fast surfaces (5 Wimbledons, numerous indoor hardcourt/carpet titles, Masters Cup titles on indoor), he can play on clay (2nd only to Nadal for a number of years; came close in Rome, broke his clay streak at Hamburg), he is one of the greatest baseliners ever, etc. Like I said, his skillset appears to be the most complete, in my opinion. He may not be as brutally consistent as Nadal, or have the greatest attacking game like Sampras. But he's very very competent (at his best) at both offense and defense, at both baselining and at net, and on all surfaces. Thus he has the most complete skillset, and that to me makes him the BOAT.

Totally second this. Brilliant post

TheNatural
05-13-2009, 11:35 PM
Does Sampras have the most consecutive weeks as #1?
Who has there most consecutive years as #1. years> weeks in importance
Does Sampras have even one French Open final?
Fed lost the finals.Its about winning.
Does Sampras have more masters titles?
Rafa still beats Fed too. They're both 2nd best here in their era.
Does Sampras have more consecutive Wimbledons?
Sampras has more Wimbledons 7>5
Does Sampras have more consecutive USO?
Fed got lucky. Nadal injured in 07, sacrificed USO for Olympics in 08. Stil both have 5 USO
Does Sampras have a year end winning percentage of 88% or more?
Sampras has a higher slam final winning %.Its the big ones that matter
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive grass matches won?
Sampras is undefeated in 7 WImbledon finals, Fed lost the final.
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive hard matches won?
Less polarized conditions make it way easier for top guy to win now with a lower risk game, so less losses expected
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS semi-finals appearances?
who cares about semis, its about winning finals
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS finals appearances?
Its about WINNING the finals.

Want me to add more? Sampras's resume is a micro version of Federer's.

EPIC FAILURE :oops:

veroniquem
05-13-2009, 11:37 PM
sure he does, nadals best game isnt far from feds best game what he showed several times didnt he (asking fedfanboys)?
and since tennis isnt extremely strong nowadays even though stronger than in time of feds dominance, if nadal avoids injuries i wouldnt be surprised if he reaches 15-20 slams
really
I don't know about the final # of slams, who can predict? I don't think anybody will ever win 20 slams. All I know is that right now Nadal is fascinating to watch, every week he's playing better than the last. I'm just holding my breath about how long this is gonna last and about how much better he can still become.

Bud
05-13-2009, 11:38 PM
Fed's story unfortunately is a sad one:

The main reason why I say this is because, Fed could of been easily the GOAT of all time. He just happened to run into Nadal at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Look at what he should of accomplished but didn't:

Fed has currently 13 GS,14 MS and 4 YEC

Fed from 2005-2007 Won AO, Wimbledon and USO. He was also the finalist of RG in all of those 3 years.

If it wasn't for Nadal, Fed would of completed the Calendar Grand Slam 3 Years in a row (something not even Rod Laver would of been able to accomplish) so that would of given him 16 GS (which beats Sampras' record)

Fed has met Nadal twice in Monte-Carlo, once in Rome and twice in Hamburg. He managed to defeat Nadal back in Hamburg 07, but if he would of had anyone else, he would of procured those 4 other MS which would of given him a total of 18 MS (beating Agassi's record)

Oh let's not forget Nadal ruined Fed's chances of breaking Borg's record of consecutive Wimbledons last year by losing to Nadal.

Federer met a certain hot Nalby in YEC 06 and he blew his chance to win his fifth YEC (which would of tied Sampras and Lendl)

And he was #1 for 233 weeks. If it wasn't for Nadal being close behind him all those years, he'd still be #1 and would of broken Sampras number of weeks being #1.

Sad story for Fed. He should of broken all records and instead he's not known a GOAT anymore.

Fed could of complete the unthinkable.

:cry::cry::cry:

Yes, a sad story... never a problem to break all known records when you have little competition.

How about this... had Nadal come along a bit sooner, Federer would be seen as just an above average player and would have fewer GS titles and MS titles.

IOW, he's fortunate he had a few years playing without Nadal's overwhelming presence.

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:46 PM
I don't know about the final # of slams, who can predict? I don't think anybody will ever win 20 slams. All I know is that right now Nadal is fascinating to watch, every week he's playing better than the last. I'm just holding my breath about how long this is gonna last and about how much better he can still become.

his problem is his technique that is unbelievable torture for his body
but if he manages to stay healthy he can keep winning lots of slams and dominate the game for next 3 years or so without a doubt and i believe he will win both french and wimby this year, dont think he can win uso though

i said 15-20 which means he has a chance to get the biggest slam achievement of all time
and i give him all the credit, despite the fact that he isnt as talented as federer i believe both talent and hard work made him what he is now
so yeah, i give nadal much more credit than federer because he deserves it

Cenc
05-13-2009, 11:47 PM
:cry::cry::cry:

Yes, a sad story... never a problem to break all known records when you have little competition.

How about this... had Nadal come along a bit sooner, Federer would be seen as just an above average player and would have fewer GS titles and MS titles.

IOW, he's fortunate he had a few years playing without Nadal's overwhelming presence.

nadal+murray+djoko LOL :D
without them fed would win many many titles

luckyboy1300
05-14-2009, 03:32 AM
Haha what a joke. Murray has already reached the same # of slam finals Rios the flake did his whole career. Rios is by far the biggest joke #1 in history, that is all. Kafelnikov didnt win a Masters title his whole career and had joke draws to his 2 slams. He never once had a big win in a slam. He was dominated his whole career by Thomas Johansson, a teenage Hewitt, and others. He is also the second worst #1 ever after only Rios. Murray at 22 already has 3 Masters titles. Korda was injured most of his career.




Yeah like all those were ever playing well at the same time. Like Bruguera, Corrjeta, Muster, were big threats outside of clay. You are funny. If we talk about just the whole decade we could say in the 2000s it was:

Kuerten, Sampras, Agassi, Ivanisevic, Nadal, Federer, Ferrero, Hewitt, Roddick, Kafelnikov, Moya, Rafter, Coria, Murray, Djokovic, Safin, Nalbandian. See how easy that was.



ROTFL!!! I cant even stand Federer you clown.

if rios can get to #1 then it pretty much sums up the joke competition in the 90s era.

TheNatural
05-14-2009, 04:03 AM
if rios can get to #1 then it pretty much sums up the joke competition in the 90s era.

Rios was one of Fed's tennis heros for a reason. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer) :oops:
/'
In addition to tennis, he also played football as a boy and considered becoming a professional footballer before deciding to pursue a career in tennis. He is a fervent supporter of his hometown club FC Basel. As a youngster, he enjoyed watching former world #1 Chilean player Marcelo Ríos in action. In addition to Rios, he especially liked Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg, and has cited the three as his idols

/'

seffina
05-14-2009, 04:08 AM
Becker and Edberg are two of my faves! I knew I liked Roger for a reason. Becker's 89 Wimbledon win over Edberg was the first tournament I remember watching.

----------
As I said in the Sampras thread, he's one of the greatest. No such thing as greatest of all time.

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
05-14-2009, 04:09 AM
What's a GOAT?

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 04:14 AM
GOAT is an acronym for Golden Orange Aluminum Tennis

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 04:14 AM
Greatest Of All Time

vtmike
05-14-2009, 04:15 AM
What's a GOAT?

Greatest of All Time

Blade0324
05-14-2009, 05:52 AM
Had to go no. IMO Fed is not really even close and even if he passes Pete's slam record, which is a HUGE stretch, he still would not be.

Cenc
05-14-2009, 09:52 AM
if rios can get to #1 then it pretty much sums up the joke competition in the 90s era.

lol... u guys are just funny, never give any proof or evidence just keep posting same ********s and keep insulting everyone who proves u wrong
its just funny, keep up the good work
i love comedies

Cenc
05-14-2009, 09:53 AM
Rios was one of Fed's tennis heros for a reason. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer) :oops:
/'
In addition to tennis, he also played football as a boy and considered becoming a professional footballer before deciding to pursue a career in tennis. He is a fervent supporter of his hometown club FC Basel. As a youngster, he enjoyed watching former world #1 Chilean player Marcelo Ríos in action. In addition to Rios, he especially liked Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg, and has cited the three as his idols

/'


also moya once said that he most enjoyed watching federer and rios because of beautiful technique
it was also said for a reason

luckyboy1300
05-14-2009, 01:54 PM
lol... u guys are just funny, never give any proof or evidence just keep posting same ********s and keep insulting everyone who proves u wrong
its just funny, keep up the good work
i love comedies

as i've said, you're only providing evidences of your fetishes of the 90s era. all you do is just spew random tennis names and make them up as tennis gods. i don't particularly like your "coz i said so" attitude and from now on must agree on disagreeing each other any time.

back to the point of rios. i don't care if federer is one of the fans of rios (well he indeed has a very special game). gasquet and gulbis also has some legions of fans. doesn't make them spectacular players. just his aussie open 1998 fiasco against korda, getting crushed like that is no sign of a special player and a good number 1.

Bud
05-14-2009, 06:02 PM
They're currently neck and neck at:
55 No
54 Yes
:)

Blue Drop
05-14-2009, 08:04 PM
Of course not. Not even close or disputable.

No one with any knowledge of tennis history or who follows tennis longer than 5 years can claim in right mind that Federer is the GOAT. There are several much greater players than him.

None of which are your boy, Dkjerkovic.

Tennis_Monk
05-14-2009, 08:20 PM
Does Sampras have the most consecutive weeks as #1?
Does Sampras have even one French Open final?
Does Sampras have more masters titles?
Does Sampras have more consecutive Wimbledons?
Does Sampras have more consecutive USO?
Does Sampras have a year end winning percentage of 88% or more?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive grass matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive hard matches won?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS semi-finals appearances?
Does Sampras have the record for most consecutive GS finals appearances?

Want me to add more? Sampras's resume is a micro version of Federer's.

Does Sampras know how to play and win on Clay ? No. Does Federer know how to play and win on Clay? YES.

Does Sampras lose to Journeymen on Clay? Absolutely. Does Federer lose to some nonamers? NO.

Does Sampras have better match winning streak than Federer? NO.

Does Sampras have more Aus open titles than Federer? Hell NO.

Did Sampras lose in USOPEN finals more than Federer? Absolutely. Fed is yet to lose a final at USOPEN

i can go on with as many meaningless stats as they can be made.

At the end of the day, here it is in simple and plain words. Sampras is NO longer in contention for GOAT (key word : NO LONGER). Federer still IS. How can one call a player (sampras) GOAT when he isnt a factor on a major surface?

Nadal_Freak
05-14-2009, 08:36 PM
This thread is indirectly asking if you are a fanboy of Fed's. lol

aphex
05-14-2009, 09:43 PM
delete post

Bud
05-14-2009, 09:48 PM
They're currently neck and neck at:
55 No
54 Yes
:)

Now:
60 No
56 Yes

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-14-2009, 10:04 PM
Does Sampras know how to play and win on Clay ? No. Does Federer know how to play and win on Clay? YES.

Does Sampras lose to Journeymen on Clay? Absolutely. Does Federer lose to some nonamers? NO.

Does Sampras have better match winning streak than Federer? NO.

Does Sampras have more Aus open titles than Federer? Hell NO.

Did Sampras lose in USOPEN finals more than Federer? Absolutely. Fed is yet to lose a final at USOPEN

i can go on with as many meaningless stats as they can be made.

At the end of the day, here it is in simple and plain words. Sampras is NO longer in contention for GOAT (key word : NO LONGER). Federer still IS. How can one call a player (sampras) GOAT when he isnt a factor on a major surface? All this is true they just don't like answering my questions as they don't like my answers so they answer with the few good records Sampras holds.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-14-2009, 10:06 PM
This thread is indirectly asking if you are a fanboy of Fed's. lol No it's not. It's funny how sometimes you post really good stuff then you come in with the stupidity you generally make. I love it how since Fed is doing well in this poll everyone is saying only Fed fans vote for him....

Also alot of the "no's" are there because people have said he is close but they don't believe there is one OR by the end of his career they believe he will be it.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 10:20 PM
To Chelsea_Kiwi,
In a previous post you asked me if I knew anything about tennis. I make no claims to be an expert but I did respond to your question and gave a brief summary of my experience.

Would you please share what got you into tennis and shed some light on your tennis knowledge? I am not trying to bate you or challenge you to a tennis knowledge contest. Just wanted to know more about you.




In all honesty I know very little about tennis prior to the 80's. I logged in countless hours watching matches since the early 80's. I also work from home and tennis is on around the clock. It's been several years since Iv'e missed a Fed match and those have been due to a recorder malfunction. Recently I've started to get real down on Fed and realised I should have been enjoying Sampras's play when he was palying. I hated watching him succeed after all the times he jacked up Boris Becker yet I still watched hundreds of Pete's matches to try and mold my game. I played tennis as a junior at good enough level to qualify for state finals at the 16 and under level and other tournaments where you have to qualify to get into. I never did well enough to think I could go pro despite my parents having spent thousands of dollars on coaching ever since I was a child. I gave up on playing tennis seriously and decided to play in highschool for fun. We won our district and I was the number one player on our team my senior year. I had a slighty better than 500 hundred record but I'd have to find and dust off the old year book to say exactly what my record was. I won against the lesser to average players and got handed some major beat downs by some of the better players. I am in my thirities and play around 3 to 4 times a weak. I am overweight and slow so despite having solid strokes I can't keep up solid footwork for long and my game suffers. I've taken lessons for over 20 years (12 of those consistently) and take a lot of joy in playing. I will say I just recently played with a Teaching Pro from Saddlebrook and handed him 6-1 beat down. He wasn't expecting a short fat guy like me to know what I was doing on the court but let's just say I won't be taking lessons from him anymore. I am a huge fan of the tennis Boris Becker played and eventhough I had already been watching tennis for a while I didn't really fall in love with tennis until I saw Boris Play.

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 10:45 PM
Please ignore my above post, Chelsea_Kiwi responded to me.

Cenc
05-14-2009, 10:54 PM
This thread is indirectly asking if you are a fanboy of Fed's. lol

1st time i agree with u

Cenc
05-14-2009, 10:57 PM
All this is true they just don't like answering my questions as they don't like my answers so they answer with the few good records Sampras holds.

those "few records" mean more than all feds "semis etc" records
what i explained before so im too lazy to write it again

the problem for u guys is that sampras IS the actual G.O.A.T and fed has slim chances of becoming one before breaking at least 2 or 3 of MAJOR records

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-14-2009, 11:10 PM
those "few records" mean more than all feds "semis etc" records
what i explained before so im too lazy to write it again

the problem for u guys is that sampras IS the actual G.O.A.T and fed has slim chances of becoming one before breaking at least 2 or 3 of MAJOR records Tennis - Clay = Good chance Sampras is the GOAT.

Cenc
05-14-2009, 11:44 PM
Tennis - Clay = Good chance Sampras is the GOAT.

u still didnt kill my argument
because same goes for federer
if he needs to be one of the best on every surface its ok we can talk like that
then only aga can be the goat what is stupid because he wasnt the best in his own era, so we dont have the goat yet
if he doesnt have to then sampras is the GOAT

u look funny if u are saying: feds game on clay is exactly high enough for possible goat

its just ridiculous because he didnt do anything major on clay as well

BorisBeckerFan
05-14-2009, 11:59 PM
Some Fed fans are using finals and semis as evidence for the GOAT debate. What's next quarters? Then on the flipside we have the the Fed haters who are bashing Fed for wanting to be with his family instead accepting an award. Go figure.

Bud
05-15-2009, 01:51 AM
those "few records" mean more than all feds "semis etc" records
what i explained before so im too lazy to write it again

the problem for u guys is that sampras IS the actual G.O.A.T and fed has slim chances of becoming one before breaking at least 2 or 3 of MAJOR records

According to my other poll, Sampras is not the GOAT, either ;-)

Tennis_Monk
05-15-2009, 02:26 AM
u still didnt kill my argument
because same goes for federer
if he needs to be one of the best on every surface its ok we can talk like that
then only aga can be the goat what is stupid because he wasnt the best in his own era, so we dont have the goat yet
if he doesnt have to then sampras is the GOAT

u look funny if u are saying: feds game on clay is exactly high enough for possible goat

its just ridiculous because he didnt do anything major on clay as well

You are incorrect. Federer has been consistently second best player on clay for 3-4 yrs. Sampras , i agree has been consistent on clay ---in losing to the some nonamer journeymen, being a non factor on clay.

Whats Sampras's famous victory on Clay. I am not too big on history so can someone refresh me. Lets see FEderer's. He won against Rafael Nadal on Clay. I dont think any special mention is needed for Rafael Nadal's credentials on Clay.

[Lets see what Sampras significant matches on clay are. He won the prestigious Italian Open in 1994, defeating Boris Becker in the final, and two singles matches in the 1995 Davis Cup final against Russians Andrei Chesnokov and Kafelnikov in Moscow. Sampras also won a 1998 clay court tournament in Atlanta, defeating Jason Stoltenberg in the final. Great claycourt resume ]

Cenc
05-15-2009, 06:37 AM
You are incorrect. Federer has been consistently second best player on clay for 3-4 yrs. Sampras , i agree has been consistent on clay ---in losing to the some nonamer journeymen, being a non factor on clay.

Whats Sampras's famous victory on Clay. I am not too big on history so can someone refresh me. Lets see FEderer's. He won against Rafael Nadal on Clay. I dont think any special mention is needed for Rafael Nadal's credentials on Clay.

[Lets see what Sampras significant matches on clay are. He won the prestigious Italian Open in 1994, defeating Boris Becker in the final, and two singles matches in the 1995 Davis Cup final against Russians Andrei Chesnokov and Kafelnikov in Moscow. Sampras also won a 1998 clay court tournament in Atlanta, defeating Jason Stoltenberg in the final. Great claycourt resume ]


yeah right
everything fed did is exactly goat-like
i guess even somebody without 60 set loss in slam finals shouldnt be considered a goat just because hey, he isnt federer
so criteria is exactly what fed did?
nice, objective and completely fanboyish

ksbh
05-15-2009, 06:40 AM
No, he isn't.

Tennisfans1
05-15-2009, 06:55 AM
Sorry *******s but finals don't cut it for GOAT a big FAT NO!

thalivest
05-15-2009, 07:07 AM
Federer is only the 8th greatest player of all time. Not even close to being the GOAT.

Claimant
05-15-2009, 08:29 AM
Yeah sure, who are the other 7 then?

380pistol
05-15-2009, 08:46 AM
Yeah sure, who are the other 7 then?

Not saying Federer is the #8 on the all time list, but.....

Bill Tilden
Don Budge
Pancho Gonzales
Rod Laver
Bjorn Borg
Pete Sampras

..... that's 6 that can be argued.

Claimant
05-15-2009, 09:03 AM
Not saying Federer is the #8 on the all time list, but.....

Bill Tilden
Don Budge
Pancho Gonzales
Rod Laver
Bjorn Borg
Pete Sampras

..... that's 6 that can be argued.

I have to disagree with some of them :)

Tennis_Monk
05-15-2009, 02:46 PM
yeah right
everything fed did is exactly goat-like
i guess even somebody without 60 set loss in slam finals shouldnt be considered a goat just because hey, he isnt federer
so criteria is exactly what fed did?
nice, objective and completely fanboyish

Though it may appear funny, That is true.What federer did or achieve qualified him as GOAT. dont tell me you thought Sampras is a GOAT. That would be real funny. Sampras sucked on Clay. He is a "NON factor" on Clay. how could one call him a GOAT, beats me.

I see that saying such things makes one a Fanboy in your book. Your book your wish. Has no bearing on anything else.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-15-2009, 03:05 PM
Some Fed fans are using finals and semis as evidence for the GOAT debate. What's next quarters? Then on the flipside we have the the Fed haters who are bashing Fed for wanting to be with his family instead accepting an award. Go figure. Yes you obviously think consistency doesn't matter.

GameSampras
05-15-2009, 03:13 PM
I have to disagree with some of them :)

Which ones? All have have a legit case.

Sometimes I think Borg does but then when I see how he took his ball and went home at 25, than I 2nd guess

Tennis_Monk
05-15-2009, 03:45 PM
Some Fed fans are using finals and semis as evidence for the GOAT debate. What's next quarters? Then on the flipside we have the the Fed haters who are bashing Fed for wanting to be with his family instead accepting an award. Go figure.

I will try explaining again (though it doesnt matter coz most people arent open minded enough to change their opinion on a rational argument).

Both federer and sampras are decent candidates for GOAT debates. The question , if one has to chose between them is whose achievements are more GOAT like. Sampras record on Clay is far from GOAT like. frankly if Frenchopen strictly followed ranking (ala wimbledon) based off of clay court record, Sampras would be lucky if doesnt have to qualify. Anywayz they didnt and sampras did win an odd match or two incl a run into 2 week of open though he never even came close to even have a chance at winning the title.

federer on the other hand came within two sets of winning the title two times and witin 3 sets once only stopped by Greatest claycourter ever-- Rafa Nadal.

Even Outside of Frenchopen, Sampras continues to struggle on claycourts while federer actually won ROME title beating the Great claycourt player.

I am pretty sure most people with common sense agree that Federer is far better player than Sampras on Clay. Now it comes down to what else one is looking for in a GOAT. some people think head-head rivalry against an opponent is very important while some people think winning wimbledon x number of times is more important.

My position is not as much as Federer being a GOAT. frankly i dont care who is GOAT (it can never be objectively determined). But between Sampras and Federer, Federer is the better GOAT (sampras is a non factor 37% of the season).

Bud
05-16-2009, 12:13 AM
71 No
68 Yes

jimbo333
05-16-2009, 12:18 AM
According to my other poll, Sampras is not the GOAT, either ;-)

Absolutely:)

LAVER is the GOAT:)

<3tennis!!!
05-16-2009, 12:26 AM
71 No
68 Yes
thanks for you useless info

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 12:54 AM
71 No
68 Yes IMO that is a good indication he IS the GOAT due to the fact many said they picked no because he was close but they don't believe there is one. And atleast it is closer then the Sampras one.

Bud
05-16-2009, 12:59 AM
71 No
68 Yes

thanks for you useless info

Casting pearls before swine :oops:

TheNatural
05-16-2009, 01:42 AM
IMO that is a good indication he IS the GOAT due to the fact many said they picked no because he was close but they don't believe there is one. And atleast it is closer then the Sampras one.

In the other combined poll results for GOAT with names listed the overall results were:

Sampras 43%
Federer: 25.65%
Laver 14.25%
Borg 7.125%
Gonzalez 7.125%
other 2.85%

This poll just indicates that *******s are more likely to be attracted to this poll, that's about it.

TheNatural
05-16-2009, 01:50 AM
Not saying Federer is the #8 on the all time list, but.....

Bill Tilden
Don Budge
Pancho Gonzales
Rod Laver
Bjorn Borg
Pete Sampras

..... that's 6 that can be argued.


Ken Rosewall is above Federer too. He won the equivalent of over 20 slams, and was winning the big titles for many more years than Federer.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 02:13 AM
In the other combined poll results for GOAT with names listed the overall results were:

Sampras 43%
Federer: 25.65%
Laver 14.25%
Borg 7.125%
Gonzalez 7.125%
other 2.85%

This poll just indicates that *******s are more likely to be attracted to this poll, that's about it. Well why don't you create a poll that has all these players in at once? Don't combine polls there is TOO many variables.

TheNatural
05-16-2009, 02:32 AM
Well why don't you create a poll that has all these players in at once? Don't combine polls there is TOO many variables.

I think its better to put a poll in the ex pro player section. In this section there's too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago.Any poll in this section is biased towards Federer since most of the kids here have never seen Sampras play and they havn't heard of any of the other goat candidates. So the only guys left are Nadal and Federer. The other 51 % must've voted Nadal as the goat.:)

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 02:43 AM
I think its better to put a poll in the ex pro player section. In this section there's too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago.Any poll in this section is biased towards Federer since most of the kids here have never seen Sampras play and they havn't heard of any of the other goat candidates. So the only guys left are Nadal and Federer. The other 51 % must've voted Nadal as the goat.:) Surprisingly I agree with you. However due to the fact the former pro section is not as popular (for obvious reasons) it doesn't get as big a range. Also not to mention it has an unfair advantage towards Former Pros and not Current. So in other words it is impossible to find a GOAT on TennisTalk!

Claimant
05-16-2009, 02:47 AM
Ken Rosewall is above Federer too. He won the equivalent of over 20 slams, and was winning the big titles for many more years than Federer.


Of course, how did we forget him? You are just so biased towards Federer.

Bud
05-16-2009, 02:48 AM
I think its better to put a poll in the ex pro player section. In this section there's too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago.Any poll in this section is biased towards Federer since most of the kids here have never seen Sampras play and they havn't heard of any of the other goat candidates. So the only guys left are Nadal and Federer. The other 51 % must've voted Nadal as the goat.:)

Surprisingly I agree with you. However due to the fact the former pro section is not as popular (for obvious reasons) it doesn't get as big a range. Also not to mention it has an unfair advantage towards Former Pros and not Current. So in other words it is impossible to find a GOAT on TennisTalk!

The poll will close in 3 months... so everyone should have a chance to vote on it ;-)

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 02:57 AM
Surprisingly I agree with you. However due to the fact the former pro section is not as popular (for obvious reasons) it doesn't get as big a range. Also not to mention it has an unfair advantage towards Former Pros and not Current. So in other words it is impossible to find a GOAT on TennisTalk!

Good posts. Not to mention that identifying a GOAT on tennistalk while a mamooth effort, isnt a representative sample when put across the entire tennis community (language, internet availability, populartiy of TW forum in certain countries, interest of people to vote, etc).

aphex
05-16-2009, 03:20 AM
I think its better to put a poll in the ex pro player section. In this section there's too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago.Any poll in this section is biased towards Federer since most of the kids here have never seen Sampras play and they havn't heard of any of the other goat candidates. So the only guys left are Nadal and Federer. The other 51 % must've voted Nadal as the goat.:)

clearly! this is an american site--

outside the us, sampras being goat is just a funny joke

helloworld
05-16-2009, 04:37 AM
clearly! this is an american site--

outside the us, sampras being goat is just a funny joke

I have many international friends who play tennis and most of them think Sampras is the greatest.

aphex
05-16-2009, 04:45 AM
I have many imaginary international friends who play tennis and most of them think Sampras is the greatest.

fixed it for ya.

swedechris
05-16-2009, 04:47 AM
His good showings on all surfaces for some years now,makes me think he probably is.

( if there where as many important indoor events of importance as there are claycourts events i think he would be the GOAT already beyond any doubt.)

hoodjem
05-16-2009, 04:53 AM
Not at present. He needs three Grand Slams and 9 years as the world no. 1. But he is above Sampras.

cork_screw
05-16-2009, 04:53 AM
Hey re-read what you wrote. It doesn't make sense. Proof-read before you submit so it doesn't sound like you're a high school drop out. And BTW, just because someone says something doesn't make it true. I believe this is why we are ranked dead last in education in America.

IMO that is a good indication he IS the GOAT due to the fact many said they picked no because he was close but they don't believe there is one. And atleast it is closer then the Sampras one.

aphex
05-16-2009, 04:58 AM
Not at present. He needs three Grand Slams and 9 years as the world no. 1. But he is above Sampras.

hoodjem, you always make great, informative posts but on this, you are wrong.

achivements of the 50s/60s do not translate to todays game.
what do you think the number 100 player looked like in the 60s?

there probably even werent 100 players in the 60s (figuratively speaking)...

todat, baghdatis is about 100 in the world...

tennis is faaaar deeper and more difficult now.

what you're saying is impossible in today's terms..

cork_screw
05-16-2009, 05:03 AM
I don't know, Sampras had a good flat forehand and a dominating serve, but his backhand was a liability that he just pushed back into play. Also he was a bit skewed in the way that he was dominate if he played his game, S/V. Federer has a good BH, and plays great from the baseline or S/V. I think Sampras played in a more classical era with more old schoolers. Modern tennis has boosted the MPH and topspin on all shots and it would be very hard to come to net w/o someone passing you. You just can't come to net against nadal, he's probably one of the most under-rated passers. Also guys are more ripped and their physical training regiment is much better making the crop of average players that much better than say 15-20 years ago. It's hard to say really, I think the main difference is the amount of topsin guys on tour are generating as opposed to the old school days where it was S/V and hit a good flat winner. But I do agree with you that these kids don't understand the roots of tennis and how under appreciated some of the players were.

I think its better to put a poll in the ex pro player section. In this section there's too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago.Any poll in this section is biased towards Federer since most of the kids here have never seen Sampras play and they havn't heard of any of the other goat candidates. So the only guys left are Nadal and Federer. The other 51 % must've voted Nadal as the goat.:)

luckyboy1300
05-16-2009, 05:36 AM
I think its better to put a poll in the ex pro player section. In this section there's too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago.Any poll in this section is biased towards Federer since most of the kids here have never seen Sampras play and they havn't heard of any of the other goat candidates. So the only guys left are Nadal and Federer. The other 51 % must've voted Nadal as the goat.:)

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=7216

drakulie
05-16-2009, 05:41 AM
^^^^damn. Owned badly.

To add, The Natural says there are too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago, and ironically>>> he has never even seen a full Sampras match, and also started playing/watching tennis a few years ago.

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 06:05 AM
fixed it for ya.

LOL..............good sense of humour.

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 06:08 AM
I have many international friends who play tennis and most of them think Sampras is the greatest.

Unfortunately your friends and my friends arent representative (atleast not scientifically admissible data) to say Sampras is the greatest.

I have some friends who doesnt know Sampras from Kobe Bryant. Many of them think i am the greatest tennis player (metaphorically it could be argued but not accurate even in my wildest dreams).

epicsocks
05-16-2009, 06:17 AM
Most talented? Yes.
Greatest? Not yet, no.

He lacks the mental toughness that has won Nadal all of his slams. If Federer ever excises his inner demons, then I would consider him GOAT.

thejoe
05-16-2009, 06:19 AM
^^^^damn. Owned badly.

To add, The Natural says there are too many kids who just started watching tennis 3 years ago, and ironically>>> he has never even seen a full Sampras match, and also started playing/watching tennis a few years ago.

Then why does he have a Sampras avatar? I could always tell he was clueless.

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 06:43 AM
Most talented? Yes.
Greatest? Not yet, no.

He lacks the mental toughness that has won Nadal all of his slams. If Federer ever excises his inner demons, then I would consider him GOAT.

I will let Federer know about it.

Cenc
05-16-2009, 07:24 AM
Though it may appear funny, That is true.

what else to say about this man?
fed farts and whopa:
next day we see on this forum: "god, this was the best fart of all times, it was just amazing, so elegant, so beautiful"

drakulie
05-16-2009, 08:50 AM
Then why does he have a Sampras avatar? I could always tell he was clueless.

There are a few posters with Sampras avatars and they have never even seen the guy play other than youtube clips.

The Natural, GameSampras, 380Pistol, etc, etc.

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 09:44 AM
what else to say about this man?
fed farts and whopa:
next day we see on this forum: "god, this was the best fart of all times, it was just amazing, so elegant, so beautiful"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

Not too optimistic but it might help!

Cenc
05-16-2009, 09:46 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

Not too optimistic but it might help!

lol ur miserable because theres nothing u can say except to insult

ok, let me say it this way:
what are your "tennis qualifications"?
are you a tennis player? what level? have u played any leagues?
or you are just a fan obsessed by federer who has either never seen anyone else or likes "elegant guys"?

hoodjem
05-16-2009, 09:53 AM
hoodjem, you always make great, informative posts but on this, you are wrong.

achivements of the 50s/60s do not translate to todays game.
what do you think the number 100 player looked like in the 60s?

there probably even werent 100 players in the 60s (figuratively speaking)...

today, baghdatis is about 100 in the world...

tennis is faaaar deeper and more difficult now.

what you're saying is impossible in today's terms..

Thank you for the kind words. I was being a little facetious.

In my defense, I would offer that the number of male professional players is greater today, yes. Does that mean that the level of lay is higher or that the number one male player is the best that has ever been? No, not necessarily. The court still has the same measurements. The ball is the same size.

Yes, there are some differences (equipment and perhaps training), but IMO the essence of the game is the same. We have to play on or inside the same lines Bill Tilden did. If the ball lands out, one loses the point. etc., etc.

I believe that you have an interesting and valid point: there are more professional tennis players today. Does this mean, therefore that they are better? Perhaps statistically likely, but not undeniably true. Does more equate to better? No, not IMO.

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 10:01 AM
lol ur miserable because theres nothing u can say except to insult

ok, let me say it this way:
what are your "tennis qualifications"?
are you a tennis player? what level? have u played any leagues?
or you are just a fan obsessed by federer who has either never seen anyone else or likes "elegant guys"?

making assumptions is your cup of tea, not mine. This clearly shows that you draw conclusions on data you dont have!.you dont know me. You dont even know if i am one or multiple persons posting on same id. You know zilch about me but you drew conclusions about me.

And you expect us to believe your analysis based on "garbage" data.

My Tennis credentials are not your business.

JoshDragon
05-16-2009, 10:03 AM
what else to say about this man?
fed farts and whopa:
next day we see on this forum: "god, this was the best fart of all times, it was just amazing, so elegant, so beautiful"

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll147/nov2rem/Troll_Alert.gif

Cenc
05-16-2009, 10:12 AM
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll147/nov2rem/Troll_Alert.gif

thx for posting ur photo, i always wondered how u look

Cenc
05-16-2009, 10:13 AM
making assumptions is your cup of tea, not mine. This clearly shows that you draw conclusions on data you dont have!.you dont know me. You dont even know if i am one or multiple persons posting on same id. You know zilch about me but you drew conclusions about me.

And you expect us to believe your analysis based on "garbage" data.

My Tennis credentials are not your business.

because u dont know anything about tennis and dont play it lol
and let me remind you: numbers dont lie
14 slams > 13 slams
6 years n1 > 4 years n1
so lets end this, you say fed, i say sampras, i showed data, you showed ur opinion, lets let everyone decide his candidate and end the useless debate

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 10:17 AM
because u dont know anything about tennis and dont play it lol
and let me remind you: numbers dont lie
14 slams > 13 slams
6 years n1 > 4 years n1
so lets end this, you say fed, i say sampras, i showed data, you showed ur opinion, lets let everyone decide his candidate and end the useless debate

Dude. Admit it. You lost the battle. You made conclusions about me.
You are doing it again. You know zilch about me.

You are still expecting people to believe your data is not garbage when it is clear that it is.

JoshDragon
05-16-2009, 10:20 AM
thx for posting ur photo, i always wondered how u look

Yet, another example as to why you deserve the forum troll of the year award.

Cenc
05-16-2009, 10:21 AM
Yet, another example as to why you deserve the forum troll of the year award.

the one who posted his picture obviously

JoshDragon
05-16-2009, 10:30 AM
I'm not surprised that Federer is winning this poll because he is at worst one of the GOAT. There are only a few players that are even in the same tier with him.

Cenc
05-16-2009, 10:48 AM
I'm not surprised that Federer is winning this poll because he is at worst one of the GOAT. There are only a few players that are even in the same tier with him.

of course he is one of the best but there is a little difference
one of the best and same thing written without "one of"
imo
sampras is the best
then come federer, laver, borg and budge who are about the same

hoodjem
05-16-2009, 12:58 PM
hoodjem, you always make great, informative posts but on this, you are wrong.

There probably even weren't 100 players in the 60s (figuratively speaking)...

Tennis is faaaar deeper and more difficult now.
Granted there are more pro tennis players around today. But does more players mean better players, or that the GOAT must exist now? Interesting question?

Here's an analogy for you: today there are probably at least 5000-10,000 philosophers in the world. If you total up all the individuals who "do philosophy" at all the universities in the world, there are certainly more professional philosophers than at any time in the past. Who is the geatest philospher of all time?

Not Peter Singer, not Jonathan Glover, not Bertrand Russell, not even Ludwig Wittgenstein. Many would say Plato.

zagor
05-16-2009, 01:48 PM
Ah what the hell,I'll vote yes since I'm a Fed fanboy but honestly I don't really think he is.I'd go for Laver or Borg for the GOAT mantle,probably Laver.

I don't think Fed can be a GOAT given the H2H he has with Nadal.It pains me to say that,but that's the way it is.

AprilFool
05-16-2009, 01:56 PM
If he breaks Pete's slam record it won't matter what anyone here thinks. That record combined with the rest of his resume will put him over the top and the major media will declare him GOAT.

GameSampras
05-16-2009, 02:49 PM
Wodgie is going to need to turn his chances around against Nadal and defeat him in some slams and even the h2h out more. Its IMPERATIVE as well that Fed gets the French Open title and defeat Nadal in the process of doing so to be considered the hands down GOAT.

That said. Fed prolly wont ever accomplish it. What Andre said is true. How can a player be the GOAT if he isnt the best of this generation? Its been Nadal due to his domination over Roger

maddogz32
05-16-2009, 03:24 PM
federer is definitely the GOAT, he may not have won as many slams as sampras, but he is still the greatest

Chadwixx
05-16-2009, 03:25 PM
Fed is past his prime now gamesampras, the losses to nadal dont count.

chief wiggum
05-16-2009, 03:29 PM
IMO, Federer had one of the best runs, if not the best, of any tennis player in history. His inability to win now will, in my mind, mar his record. If he kept up his unbelievable play, then I would consider his the GOAT.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 05:02 PM
Hey re-read what you wrote. It doesn't make sense. Proof-read before you submit so it doesn't sound like you're a high school drop out. And BTW, just because someone says something doesn't make it true. I believe this is why we are ranked dead last in education in America. Thank god I don't live in America. Also it does make sense your reading comprehension is just very low.

King of Aces
05-16-2009, 05:35 PM
How can he be the GOAT if Nadal has a winning record against him?


.

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
05-16-2009, 05:38 PM
Greatest of All Time

In that note, I easily vote yes.

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 06:55 PM
How can he be the GOAT if Nadal has a winning record against him?


.

So if Player A has a 2-1 edge against player B, it is probably OK. If player A has a 6-13 loss against Player B, then it is considerer to be a disqualification?

Tennis is all about matchups. It isnt uncommon to have a top player have a losing record against a player or two.

an IDEAL GOAT would never lose a single match on ATP tour to any player and will win multiple grandslams and will retire while he is at top. .

GameSampras
05-16-2009, 07:06 PM
So if Player A has a 2-1 edge against player B, it is probably OK. If player A has a 6-13 loss against Player B, then it is considerer to be a disqualification?

Tennis is all about matchups. It isnt uncommon to have a top player have a losing record against a player or two.

an IDEAL GOAT would never lose a single match on ATP tour to any player and will win multiple grandslams and will retire while he is at top. .

A h2h disadvantage against your main rival, SHOULD discredit any player considered for GOAT candidacy IMO. If you have a 5-6 disadvantage or something I could see. But when its as lopsided as the Fed-Nadal h2h is then there is a problem. All GOAT contenders should not have a pathetic h2h against another player much less their main rival. Matchups or not.

GameSampras
05-16-2009, 07:08 PM
Fed is past his prime now gamesampras, the losses to nadal dont count.

Yea yea. Fed destroys 90 plus percent of the tour with EASE and consistently reaches slam finals. Fed aint passed his prime yet. Thats just an excuse to downplay nadal's domination over him. Pure bullocks. His results have been too solid overrall

Tennis_Monk
05-16-2009, 07:22 PM
A h2h disadvantage against your main rival, SHOULD discredit any player considered for GOAT candidacy IMO. If you have a 5-6 disadvantage or something I could see. But when its as lopsided as the Fed-Nadal h2h is then there is a problem. All GOAT contenders should not have a pathetic h2h against another player much less their main rival. Matchups or not.

Every one is entitled to make their own rules on their version of GOAT. So your GOAT--your wish.

Only thing i would point out is, 5-6 and 5-13 are telling that Someone was able to beat you more times--not exactly GOAT like qualities.
For that matter just because one has a 6-4 winning record over a rival doesnt make him GOAT either-how could he be a GOAT if he lost 4 times?

GameSampras
05-16-2009, 08:02 PM
you mean like how Krajicek raepd sampras?

Kraijieck wasnt a rival to Pete and his h2h was only 6-4 over PEte. Nadal is 13-6. Pete doesnt have a h2h nearly as pitiful as Roger does with Nadal

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 09:35 PM
A h2h disadvantage against your main rival, SHOULD discredit any player considered for GOAT candidacy IMO. If you have a 5-6 disadvantage or something I could see. But when its as lopsided as the Fed-Nadal h2h is then there is a problem. All GOAT contenders should not have a pathetic h2h against another player much less their main rival. Matchups or not. And in your opinion being a non-factor for 37% of the season doesn't count you out of GOAT candidacy? Right...

Yea yea. Fed destroys 90 plus percent of the tour with EASE and consistently reaches slam finals. Fed aint passed his prime yet. Thats just an excuse to downplay nadal's domination over him. Pure bullocks. His results have been too solid overrall Thats why his first serve % is as high as it use to be and his Winners/UE ratio is still the same. Oh wait...

GameSampras
05-16-2009, 09:48 PM
And in your opinion being a non-factor for 37% of the season doesn't count you out of GOAT candidacy? Right...

Thats why his first serve % is as high as it use to be and his Winners/UE ratio is still the same. Oh wait...

Every player has his shares of highs and lows. Just because Fed isnt perfect at everything he does 100 percent of the time, he is passed his prime? Nadal has finally reached his, thats the main reason Fed has been AS DOMINANT. Nadal has been the dominant one this year

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 09:50 PM
Every player has his shares of highs and lows. Just because Fed isnt perfect at everything he does 100 percent of the time, he is passed his prime? Nadal has finally reached his, thats the main reason Fed has been AS DOMINANT. Nadal has been the dominant one this year Ok so he can be in a "low" for two years and still be in his prime? Yeah sure, whatever you say.

GameSampras
05-16-2009, 10:10 PM
Ok so he can be in a "low" for two years and still be in his prime? Yeah sure, whatever you say.

Low? For christ sakes he has reached the finals of every freaking slam he is playing only losing to 1 FREAKING PLAYER and destroying 90 plus percent of the players on tour on a consistent basis and hes still only 27 mind you and didnt even begin his domination until he was 22-23. Quit making it seem like Fed belongs in damn retirement home.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-16-2009, 10:17 PM
Low? For christ sakes he has reached the finals of every freaking slam he is playing only losing to 1 FREAKING PLAYER and destroying 90 plus percent of the players on tour on a consistent basis and hes still only 27 mind you and didnt even begin his domination until he was 22-23. Quit making it seem like Fed belongs in damn retirement home. I meant "low" in terms of first serve percentage and Winners/UE ratio. It is kind of pathetic that he still reaches finals considering how bad he is playing (for himself) but that proves one of two things:
1) The field is weaker then it was before.
2) Federer is simply too good for others even when he is playing his worse tennis since his first GS win.

Cenc
05-17-2009, 12:16 AM
poor fedfans, nobody else can understand them

Tennisfans1
05-17-2009, 12:41 AM
All this thread proves is that there are more Fed Fan buys than any types of fans here. Some people say trolls are the most common type of fan well now we know *looks in Fed fan boy direction*

Tennis_Monk
05-17-2009, 03:47 AM
All this thread proves is that there are more Fed Fan buys than any types of fans here. Some people say trolls are the most common type of fan well now we know *looks in Fed fan boy direction*

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

King of Aces
05-17-2009, 05:15 AM
So if Player A has a 2-1 edge against player B, it is probably OK. If player A has a 6-13 loss against Player B, then it is considerer to be a disqualification?

Tennis is all about matchups. It isnt uncommon to have a top player have a losing record against a player or two.

an IDEAL GOAT would never lose a single match on ATP tour to any player and will win multiple grandslams and will retire while he is at top. .

First of all prior to Nadal Feds biggest competition was only Roddick.

Second, All the other GOATS dominated everyone during their day.

Third Federer has never really dominated Nadal.

Rafa came out of the gate and beat Roger almost immediately.

The fact is that as it stands now Rafa is just a better player than Roger on any surface. Roger can never be the GOAT unless he beats Nadal.

Tennis_Monk
05-17-2009, 05:53 AM
First of all prior to Nadal Feds biggest competition was only Roddick.

Second, All the other GOATS dominated everyone during their day.

Third Federer has never really dominated Nadal.

Rafa came out of the gate and beat Roger almost immediately.

The fact is that as it stands now Rafa is just a better player than Roger on any surface. Roger can never be the GOAT unless he beats Nadal.

Roger beat Nadal in Wimbledon ...remember? . Twice. May be its inadequate according to some people.

Following your logic, shouldnt Sampras then have a winning record against krajicek to be considered as "Dominated"?.

Cenc
05-17-2009, 06:13 AM
Roger beat Nadal in Wimbledon ...remember? . Twice. May be its inadequate according to some people.

Following your logic, shouldnt Sampras then have a winning record against krajicek to be considered as "Dominated"?.

fed has a losing record with simon
however its kinda meaningless
as well as sampras' losing record with krajicek
they are not rivals

feds biggest rivals are roddick, nadal, murray and djokovic

sampras' rivals were agassi, courier, becker, ivanisevic, rafter

sampras wasnt dominated by his rivals
fed is

Tennis_Monk
05-17-2009, 08:00 AM
fed has a losing record with simon
however its kinda meaningless
as well as sampras' losing record with krajicek
they are not rivals

feds biggest rivals are roddick, nadal, murray and djokovic

sampras' rivals were agassi, courier, becker, ivanisevic, rafter

sampras wasnt dominated by his rivals
fed is

Couple of observations.

So it is now about "Rivals" and not Grandslams?. because you realized your Grandslam argument and data you used is flawed?

Why isnt krajicek a rival for Sampras?. Did you compare their age or when they became pro's or etc. What data are you using to say they arent rivals?

Cenc
05-17-2009, 08:30 AM
Couple of observations.

So it is now about "Rivals" and not Grandslams?. because you realized your Grandslam argument and data you used is flawed?

Why isnt krajicek a rival for Sampras?. Did you compare their age or when they became pro's or etc. What data are you using to say they arent rivals?

yes i obviously realized that 13 slams is more than 14

Cenc
05-17-2009, 08:31 AM
Couple of observations.

So it is now about "Rivals" and not Grandslams?. because you realized your Grandslam argument and data you used is flawed?

Why isnt krajicek a rival for Sampras?. Did you compare their age or when they became pro's or etc. What data are you using to say they arent rivals?

and also fed has a pretty damn bad record against one more rival simon

tudwell
05-17-2009, 08:56 AM
If Fed were to retire with 30 slams and 10 year end number ones, would a 7-13 record with this closest rival really make a big difference? I agree it doesn't look good, but those who say it automatically excludes Federer from GOAT contention are just desperately making up new standards that Sampras fits and Federer doesn't. If Federer achieves more than Sampras, then he's a better GOAT candidate than Sampras, simple as that. Doesn't matter if he's 7-1000 against Nadal.

(And in my opinion Federer's already closer to GOAT than Sampras, but he's still a ways off...)

Dutch-Guy
05-17-2009, 09:01 AM
Because he won today? Still NO.

AprilFool
05-17-2009, 09:04 AM
He'll tie the Sampras record in England and break it in New York. Think media frenzy.

Cenc
05-17-2009, 09:50 AM
If Fed were to retire with 30 slams and 10 year end number ones, would a 7-13 record with this closest rival really make a big difference? I agree it doesn't look good, but those who say it automatically excludes Federer from GOAT contention are just desperately making up new standards that Sampras fits and Federer doesn't. If Federer achieves more than Sampras, then he's a better GOAT candidate than Sampras, simple as that. Doesn't matter if he's 7-1000 against Nadal.

(And in my opinion Federer's already closer to GOAT than Sampras, but he's still a ways off...)

but he has everything else weaker than sampras as well
so...
only thing fedfans come up with are pathetic stats like slam semis etc
fed isnt even close
he needs 2 more seasons of dominance and then he will be the greatest
until then NO
so fedfans are those who are coming up with such silly facts that fit fed and not sampras
but whole discussions is a little pointless, isnt it?

tudwell
05-17-2009, 10:18 AM
but he has everything else weaker than sampras as well
so...
only thing fedfans come up with are pathetic stats like slam semis etc
fed isnt even close
he needs 2 more seasons of dominance and then he will be the greatest
until then NO
so fedfans are those who are coming up with such silly facts that fit fed and not sampras
but whole discussions is a little pointless, isnt it?

Personally, I think it's a lot closer between the two. Sampras dominated for a longer period of time, but to a much smaller degree. Federer was practically unbeatable in 05 and 06. If Federer had 2 more year-end number ones of the same quality as the 4 he already has, he'd be leaps and bounds above Sampras. Sampras did just enough to get that number 1 spot. Federer barely lost a single match.

aphex
05-17-2009, 11:06 AM
Personally, I think it's a lot closer between the two. Sampras dominated for a longer period of time, but to a much smaller degree. Federer was practically unbeatable in 05 and 06. If Federer had 2 more year-end number ones of the same quality as the 4 he already has, he'd be leaps and bounds above Sampras. Sampras did just enough to get that number 1 spot. Federer barely lost a single match.

hahaha sampras...great player, but tier 2 goat as toni nadal said...kbye

aphex
05-17-2009, 11:07 AM
what's up buddy boy? poll not going as expected?

Tennis_Monk
05-17-2009, 11:29 AM
yes i obviously realized that 13 slams is more than 14

You clearly have an issue(I showed u a link..worth reading again). As per the data you used(mime Sampras) ,u agreed that sampras won 12 in his prime.why did u go back to 14?
U no longer want to use prime Sampras?or u just changed the dates?

Cenc
05-17-2009, 12:11 PM
You clearly have an issue(I showed u a link..worth reading again). As per the data you used(mime Sampras) ,u agreed that sampras won 12 in his prime.why did u go back to 14?
U no longer want to use prime Sampras?or u just changed the dates?

ok

PEOPLE: FROM NOW ON WE WILL REMOVE 2 SLAMS FROM SAMPRAS' CAREER BECAUSE THAT MAKES TENNIS_MONK FEEL BAD. SO FROM NOW ON, SAMPRAS IS A WINNER OF 12 SLAM TITLES AND FEDERER 13 WHICH MAKES FEDERER THE ALL-TIME-SLAM LEADER BECAUSE TENNIS_MONK HAS THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE TENNIS HISTORY

let me remind u: i said losses out of players' primes dont count as much... wins definitely do, they count just as much as in their primes

get help man, ur obsession by fed and ur need to provoke is just crazy
however, thx for good laugh, i rarely manage to laugh as much as i did last few days while talking to you because most of the people arent prone to such ahem ahem like you

Tennis_Monk
05-17-2009, 06:17 PM
ok

PEOPLE: FROM NOW ON WE WILL REMOVE 2 SLAMS FROM SAMPRAS' CAREER BECAUSE THAT MAKES TENNIS_MONK FEEL BAD. SO FROM NOW ON, SAMPRAS IS A WINNER OF 12 SLAM TITLES AND FEDERER 13 WHICH MAKES FEDERER THE ALL-TIME-SLAM LEADER BECAUSE TENNIS_MONK HAS THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE TENNIS HISTORY

let me remind u: i said losses out of players' primes dont count as much... wins definitely do, they count just as much as in their primes

get help man, ur obsession by fed and ur need to provoke is just crazy
however, thx for good laugh, i rarely manage to laugh as much as i did last few days while talking to you because most of the people arent prone to such ahem ahem like you

You obviously have a problem comprehending simple maths and logic. Seriously look at the link i posted earlier.

You dig up some weird concoction of Prime time Federer , Mime time Sampras. When i compared them showed that you did Garbage analysis based on Garbage data, you tried changing subjects.

Lets look at weirdness in your logic.

let me remind u: i said losses out of players' primes dont count as much... wins definitely do, they count just as much as in their primes

Are you serious?. Dont u realize that you are clowining yourself posting such things. Wins count but losses dont?.

i rarely manage to laugh as much as i did last few days while talking to you because most of the people arent prone to such ahem ahem like you


The pleasure is on this side as well. I had fun demonstrating to fellow forum members the Logic (or actually lack there of) in your posts. You may not have fully realized but our forum members are having a good laugh looking at the non sense drivel you post.

Trust me, you continue to post Garbage, i will try my best to weed it out and show you a more rational clear path--not that you would comprehend it but i dont want any other forum members to be misled by your ignorance.

Luckily TW forum rules on your side. There is no penalty for dumb posts. So go ahead....

Cenc
05-17-2009, 08:54 PM
its a fact
when ur old ur not as good as before so everything u do positive is still amazing because u did it when ur body hardly let you
however losses at age of 28+ are normally more often than before but since ur probably 12 and havent seen any players decline its ok lol

lol everything that goes against fed is irrational, garbage even facts are, right?
deluded crazy fanboy what else to say...

anointedone
05-17-2009, 08:57 PM
The Federer and Sampras GOAT polls are funny as both have way more votes than they deserve to have. Tennis existed before 1993.

380pistol
05-17-2009, 11:00 PM
If Fed were to retire with 30 slams and 10 year end number ones, would a 7-13 record with this closest rival really make a big difference? I agree it doesn't look good, but those who say it automatically excludes Federer from GOAT contention are just desperately making up new standards that Sampras fits and Federer doesn't. If Federer achieves more than Sampras, then he's a better GOAT candidate than Sampras, simple as that. Doesn't matter if he's 7-1000 against Nadal.

(And in my opinion Federer's already closer to GOAT than Sampras, but he's still a ways off...)


Now if Sampras was sitting on 15 slams with the French Open, but a 1-4 record in slam finals vs Agassi (losing in 3 of 4 slams), would you still think the same?? I have a hard time believing you would.

Tennis_Monk
05-18-2009, 01:34 AM
its a fact
when ur old ur not as good as before so everything u do positive is still amazing because u did it when ur body hardly let you
however losses at age of 28+ are normally more often than before but since ur probably 12 and havent seen any players decline its ok lol

lol everything that goes against fed is irrational, garbage even facts are, right?
deluded crazy fanboy what else to say...

Majority of the data you used isnt accurate and hence your findings are not accurate. Remember old saying in Analysis, Garbage in--> Garbage Out.

You couldnt back up your argument on your versions of Prime Sampras/Prime Federer. You continue to throw non rational statements like "Wins count, Losses dont".

Let me show you an example why you really need to work on learning Analysis.

ur probably 12 and havent seen any players decline its ok lol

You make assertions like above and you have no 'factual' data to back it up with.

You still expect people to think you are making a rational argument based on objective data?.

Cenc
05-18-2009, 03:37 AM
Majority of the data you used isnt accurate and hence your findings are not accurate. Remember old saying in Analysis, Garbage in--> Garbage Out.

You couldnt back up your argument on your versions of Prime Sampras/Prime Federer. You continue to throw non rational statements like "Wins count, Losses dont".

Let me show you an example why you really need to work on learning Analysis.

ur probably 12 and havent seen any players decline its ok lol

You make assertions like above and you have no 'factual' data to back it up with.

You still expect people to think you are making a rational argument based on objective data?.


ok from now on dont say anything just remind me of FACTS STATS AND DATA i said that is incorrect

babbette
05-19-2009, 01:41 AM
ok which TW Fed fan wrote this?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/178661-nadal-fans-please-stop-the-excuses

Tsk, taking your personal opinions all the way to press....tsk too far, man...too far! :p

I really hope this win still means something massive to you in months time because it seems to be really massive for you now and i'm confused about it :confused:

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-19-2009, 11:30 PM
ok from now on dont say anything just remind me of FACTS STATS AND DATA i said that is incorrect Can you remind us as all I saw was you saying who Federer played and who Sampras played... :roll:

Cenc
05-19-2009, 11:37 PM
Can you remind us as all I saw was you saying who Federer played and who Sampras played... :roll:

i asked you to show me all the incorrect data i posted here
go ahead find something

hey u cant because those are facts, unfortunately they go against federer


let me bet: next post will be "you obviously cant comprehend simple maths, logic etc. you cant understand it blahblahblah"

Josherer
05-19-2009, 11:40 PM
I think so....yes.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-19-2009, 11:46 PM
i asked you to show me all the incorrect data i posted here
go ahead find something

hey u cant because those are facts, unfortunately they go against federer


let me bet: next post will be "you obviously cant comprehend simple maths, logic etc. you cant understand it blahblahblah" Fact not facts. As far as I am aware you provided one "fact" (If you can even call it that). Btw it proves nothing if someone beats someone once doesn't mean they are good so in other words you have provided nothing.

Leublu tennis
05-20-2009, 02:09 AM
Simple poll... yes or no

No other explanation/evidence/justification required (although welcome) :wink:Simple answer ............. no. More complicated answer .............. h*ll no.

Leublu tennis
05-20-2009, 02:12 AM
such as djokovic, amirite?I know that you are a rookie, but try and resist making caustic remarks. They distract from a reasonable discussion that others are trying to carry on.

Leublu tennis
05-20-2009, 02:13 AM
Hey Leublu,

I think you are needed in the Former Pro Player section ;)Be right there. Very good!!

Dutch-Guy
05-20-2009, 02:21 AM
Still NO...

aphex
05-20-2009, 02:21 AM
I know that you are a rookie, but try and resist making caustic remarks. They distract from a reasonable discussion that others are trying to carry on.

sorry i'm disrupting "reasonable" discussion

your post below is a representative sample i suppose?


Simple answer ............. no. More complicated answer .............. h*ll no.



http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/shhh.jpg

Cenc
05-20-2009, 03:02 AM
Fact not facts. As far as I am aware you provided one "fact" (If you can even call it that). Btw it proves nothing if someone beats someone once doesn't mean they are good so in other words you have provided nothing.

i showed more
no intentions to continue the stupid discussion with people who just dont see the world out of federer

380pistol
05-20-2009, 10:38 AM
i showed more
no intentions to continue the stupid discussion with people who just dont see the world out of federer

I already told, I tried to things from Chelsea Kiwi's point of view, but it was rather difficult cuz I couldn't get my head up Federer's ***.

Cenc
05-20-2009, 10:40 AM
I already told, I tried to things from Chelsea Kiwi's point of view, but it was rather difficult cuz I couldn't get my head up Federer's ***.

there are many people here i dont understand at all

Tennis_Monk
05-20-2009, 03:58 PM
i asked you to show me all the incorrect data i posted here
go ahead find something

hey u cant because those are facts, unfortunately they go against federer


let me bet: next post will be "you obviously cant comprehend simple maths, logic etc. you cant understand it blahblahblah"

Ok. Cut the crap. I showed in several posts whats incorrect.

You ofcourse cant understand simple logic.

want an example: You came up with twisted idea of PRIME Sampras/Sub Lime Federer idea. You came up with your wierd years and times. Using the data you came up with i showed you that they have same # of slams in their prime time except that Sampras took double the time. Dont tell me thats a quality of Goat.

Then you abandoned the subject and started picking other (often) dumb stats. You came up with Losing record of Federer but didnt have any answer for Sampras's losing record against Krajicek.

When do you Comparison Analysis, Common sense says that one first needs to ensure that comparison is between similar units .

AprilFool
05-20-2009, 04:24 PM
All this thread proves is that there are more Fed Fan buys than any types of fans here. Some people say trolls are the most common type of fan well now we know *looks in Fed fan boy direction*

Judging by the poll numbers versus the mount of unique posts it wouuld appear that there are a lot of "quiet" Federer fans here, as well as just plain non-biased tennis fans.

Rickson
05-20-2009, 04:26 PM
Of course he is. The slams record is inevitable and it's used as the measuring stick for the GOAT.

tudwell
05-20-2009, 07:06 PM
Now if Sampras was sitting on 15 slams with the French Open, but a 1-4 record in slam finals vs Agassi (losing in 3 of 4 slams), would you still think the same?? I have a hard time believing you would.

Try again.

(You do realize I voted no in the poll, right?)

380pistol
05-20-2009, 09:53 PM
Try again.

(You do realize I voted no in the poll, right?)

Yeah, no need to try, as we both know it would be a factor irregardless of what you say. And no I don't care when you, or anyone votes. Hence I've never voted in any poll.

380pistol
05-20-2009, 10:41 PM
You have to be a kid..

Who would act like that on a message board?

Dude, I mean seriously..... :roll:

Not a child, and I will smack you if and when I see fit. Why are you stalking me now?? Did I hurt your feelings??? What??? Were you abused as a child, scared to smile, they called you ugly???

baseliner
05-21-2009, 04:27 AM
One who has lost to a fellow competitor in GS finals on Grass, Clay and hardcourt GOAT? No, not by a long shot!

Tennis_Monk
05-21-2009, 08:02 PM
i did say YES SAMPRAS HAS GOT losing record with krajicek
but krajicek wasnt one of his main rivals because there were just few of big matches they played and they were never past the quaters of a big tournament
however sampras' bigger rivals were agassi (far more wins for sampras)
courier (same thing)
becker (same thing)
ivanisevic (same thing)
chang (same thing)
rafter (same thing)
etc etc etc

feds main rivals were
nadal djokovic murray roddick and ljubicic in 05 and 06
while roddick and ljubicic arent rivals worth mentioning
fed has very losing record with nadal and murray
with djokovic he still has positive record but its just because they played most of their matches while djokovic was 18 or 19 and wasnt a prime player
he also has losing record with simon for example but it cannot count since simon isnt his big rival (the same way krajicek wasnt sampras' main rival)
fed has losing record with his rivals, sampras didnt have it

lets move to sampras' and feds prime
so
lets say
4 years from now
fed is nearly 32
his movement is weaker
he doesnt have as much power as before etc
he comes to wimbledon and loses to a young star, future world number 1
so what - old guy, past his prime, past injuries, in front of retirement loses - nothing serious it was expected that old guys cant play that well against young stars about 22 years old who are gonna make brilliant careers in future
then fed comes to the us open and wins it defeating nadal in finals - why wouldnt it count? guy at age of 32 wins a slam title and defeats youngsters, does something unexpected - thats a great result
same goes to guys like nadal or sampras who managed to win slams at age of 19 - brilliant result, even though they obviously werent in their primes just yet
sampras has 14
fed has 13 for now
sampras won 2 out of his prime
fed won 2 or a little more out of his prime
so what they all count
as well as its stupid to talk about feds loss to fish or volandri - they are worthless

and please, all ur capable of saying is "you dont understand simple maths and logic" while i believe that monk in ur name is a short form for monkey

so you are also deciding who are main rivals and who arent?

For our convenience, you are also deciding which loses count and which dont?

It is ok to for sampras to lose to Krajicek ?. It is ok to lose before quarters but not after that? Only you can come up with a weird logic like that.


What part dont u understand? if you lose in any ATP match, it is considered a loss. Doesnt matter which round.

Your beliefs are funny. I dont pay attention to them and you damn well know why. "You cant understand simple logic" and i "try" to avoid making fun of one's disability.

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-21-2009, 09:01 PM
i did say YES SAMPRAS HAS GOT losing record with krajicek
but krajicek wasnt one of his main rivals because there were just few of big matches they played and they were never past the quaters of a big tournament
however sampras' bigger rivals were agassi (far more wins for sampras)
courier (same thing)
becker (same thing)
ivanisevic (same thing)
chang (same thing)
rafter (same thing)
etc etc etc

feds main rivals were
nadal djokovic murray oddick and ljubicic in 05 and 06
while roddick and ljubicic arent rivals worth mentioning
fed has very losing record with nadal and murray
with djokovic he still has positive record but its just because they played most of their matches while djokovic was 18 or 19 and wasnt a prime player
he also has losing record with simon for example but it cannot count since simon isnt his big rival (the same way krajicek wasnt sampras' main rival)
fed has losing record with his rivals, sampras didnt have it

lets move to sampras' and feds prime
so
lets say
4 years from now
fed is nearly 32
his movement is weaker
he doesnt have as much power as before etc
he comes to wimbledon and loses to a young star, future world number 1
so what - old guy, past his prime, past injuries, in front of retirement loses - nothing serious it was expected that old guys cant play that well against young stars about 22 years old who are gonna make brilliant careers in future
then fed comes to the us open and wins it defeating nadal in finals - why wouldnt it count? guy at age of 32 wins a slam title and defeats youngsters, does something unexpected - thats a great result
same goes to guys like nadal or sampras who managed to win slams at age of 19 - brilliant result, even though they obviously werent in their primes just yet
sampras has 14
fed has 13 for now
sampras won 2 out of his prime
fed won 2 or a little more out of his prime
so what they all count
as well as its stupid to talk about feds loss to fish or volandri - they are worthless

and please, all ur capable of saying is "you dont understand simple maths and logic" while i believe that monk in ur name is a short form for monkey

Ok what are you on about? This seriously makes no sense what-so-ever.

Btw Roddick vs Sampras, 2-1.

Ivanisevic < Roddick
Chang < Nadal
Rafter < Djokovic

Ok so Murray and Fed play each other 8 times and Sampras and Krajicek 10 times but we should include Murray vs Fed but not Sampras vs Krajicek. Not to mention Murrays and Djokovics wins are mostly (if not all) in Feds past prime lol. You may say we shouldn't tell you that you don't understand simple logic but you seriously dude you don't.

Cenc
05-21-2009, 09:33 PM
Ok what are you on about? This seriously makes no sense what-so-ever.

Btw Roddick vs Sampras, 2-1.

Ivanisevic < Roddick
Chang < Nadal
Rafter < Djokovic

Ok so Murray and Fed play each other 8 times and Sampras and Krajicek 10 times but we should include Murray vs Fed but not Sampras vs Krajicek. Not to mention Murrays and Djokovics wins are mostly (if not all) in Feds past prime lol. You may say we shouldn't tell you that you don't understand simple logic but you seriously dude you don't.

ivanisevic>roddick
rafter>djokovic
agassi=nadal
agassi,rafter,ivanisevic,courier>roddick, djokovic
murray and fed are included because murray is definitely with nadal feds main rival
krajicek was never the guy sampras played most important matches with

Cenc
05-21-2009, 09:34 PM
so you are also deciding who are main rivals and who arent?

For our convenience, you are also deciding which loses count and which dont?

It is ok to for sampras to lose to Krajicek ?. It is ok to lose before quarters but not after that? Only you can come up with a weird logic like that.


What part dont u understand? if you lose in any ATP match, it is considered a loss. Doesnt matter which round.

Your beliefs are funny. I dont pay attention to them and you damn well know why. "You cant understand simple logic" and i "try" to avoid making fun of one's disability.

read my post again
i have no intentions to repeat every sentence again

Chelsea_Kiwi
05-21-2009, 10:40 PM
ivanisevic>roddick
rafter>djokovic
agassi=nadal
agassi,rafter,ivanisevic,courier>roddick, djokovic
murray and fed are included because murray is definitely with nadal feds main rival
krajicek was never the guy sampras played most important matches with Yet again no logic in your posts. So you think because Fed has a losing H2H with Murray he is a main rival but because Sampras has a losing H2H with Krajicek so he isn't a main rival???


I don't even need to comment on this lol:
ivanisevic>roddick
rafter>djokovic
agassi=nadal
agassi,rafter,ivanisevic,courier>roddick, djokovic

Cenc
05-21-2009, 11:24 PM
Yet again no logic in your posts. So you think because Fed has a losing H2H with Murray he is a main rival but because Sampras has a losing H2H with Krajicek so he isn't a main rival???


I don't even need to comment on this lol:
ivanisevic>roddick
rafter>djokovic
agassi=nadal
agassi,rafter,ivanisevic,courier>roddick, djokovic

then go ahead tell me who feds main rivals today are if its not murray?
its not because he is losing i also said roddick and he is beating roddick
murray is number 3 that played many late matches with fed even though murray has been in top for what? 10 months? so yes he is his rival
sampras had much bigger rivals than krajicek but yes he did have negative score the same way fed has negative score with simon
but im not gonna repeat everything again because no matter what happenes you will defend federer for the price of life

lol let me remind u
aga at 35 plays uso finals and had a great shot on defeating fed but lost due to exhaustion due to playing 3 five setters at age of 35
aga at 34 beats roddick
aga at 36 beats baghdatis
rafter has 3-0 score with fed (yet i didnt call rafter feds rival, he was sampras' rival)
kafelnikov has positive score with fed as well
ivanisevic defeated roddick in his last serious season, ok roddick was 19 but still 19 isnt any worse age than 30, probably even better age for tennis
sampras defeated roddick in the end of 2002 - roddick was already a top player and sampras was 2 matches in front of his retirement
at age of 35 agassi played a tough 3-setter in canada with nadal who was number 2 at that time

need more?