PDA

View Full Version : Is Rafa really the CCGOAT?


asafi2
04-17-2011, 09:19 AM
I mean he is beating everyone so badly and winning nearly every clay court tournament. Doesn't that translate to a weak era, Nadal fans???

That seems to be the logic most anti-Federer fans use right?

MajinX
04-17-2011, 09:36 AM
lmao, weak clay era... anyways ima just laugh and not comment on this. Ive learned a long time ago most tennis fans on this forum dont use logic. Altho I will saw the entire weak era arguments, fed or nadal are just dumb. damit I commented.

ucr_tennis90
04-17-2011, 09:38 AM
i disagree with calling this a weak era as both a nadal fan and a federer fan.

this era just got unlucky that federer became so unstoppable for so long. and after that, nadal showed up and took command of clay pretty much instantly and then worked his way to better tennis on the other surfaces.

now it may not be a "strong" era, but i don't think it's really all that "weak" either.

federer is the greatest player (overall) we've seen so far. for me, there is no arguing that anymore. nadal is arguably the best player on clay we've ever seen, especially if he wins another RG.

how about instead of both sides arguing about who the "GOAT" is, why not just enjoy watching them make history? they accept each other as friendly rivals, not mortal enemies.

sureshs
04-17-2011, 09:38 AM
Rafa is the GOAT

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 09:40 AM
Definitely weak clay era.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 09:50 AM
LOL. It's called a "weak clay era" because Nadal beats everyone and takes nearly all the titles.

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 09:53 AM
Conversely, Nadal beats everyone because they all stink??? *****, the era contradictions work both ways. Please ask ***********s

babbette
04-17-2011, 09:54 AM
The true question is what do people classify as a strong era?

Mustard
04-17-2011, 09:58 AM
The true question is what do people classify as a strong era?

The 1990s, mostly because a load of different players took the clay-court titles.

babbette
04-17-2011, 10:02 AM
The 1990s, mostly because a load of different players took the clay-court titles.

Maybe that meant they were all equally as weak 8)

mandy01
04-17-2011, 10:04 AM
I mean he is beating everyone so badly and winning nearly every clay court tournament. Doesn't that translate to a weak era, Nadal fans???

That seems to be the logic most anti-Federer fans use right?Way to dish it back to the thick *******s :lol:
For all the complaining about Roger's era,I never see them whinning about their hero's dominance on clay :mrgreen:

Hitman
04-17-2011, 10:04 AM
I guess we will never know. He is the best of his era. So you can say he is the best out of the current talent. But where that overall talent pool lies in relation to other eras is debatable. Maybe the 90s were tougher, maybe the 80s, maybe the 70s, can't say.

But yeah, I wouldn't say he is clay goat, but I would say he is the greatest on clay in his era.

Hitman
04-17-2011, 10:05 AM
Way to dish it back to the thick *******s :lol:
For all the complaining about Roger's era,I never see them whinning about their hero's dominance on clay :mrgreen:

errr...Nadal's dominance on clay pretty much was parallel to Federer's dominance on the other surfaces. So they both dealt with the same talent somewhat for many years.

borg number one
04-17-2011, 10:06 AM
Nadal is definitely among the all time greats on clay already, and he's likely to accomplish even more on the surface and elsewhere. Defining a strong or weak era is not easy, unless one accepts that there are no such distinctions. In Borg's time, there were many great clay courters that he faced off against including Orantes, Clerc, Vilas, Panatta, and Lendl. Besides such top clay courters in a given year during those years, there were usually another ten-fifteen guys who could be very dangerous on red clay. I think that Nadal has also faced some very respectable clay courters in his time, including guys like Ferrer, Ferrero, Federer, Murray, Djokovic, Davydenko, Nalbandian and Coria.

mandy01
04-17-2011, 10:07 AM
errr...Nadal's dominance on clay pretty much was parallel to Federer's dominance on the other surfaces. So they both dealt with the same talent somewhat for many years.Tell that to *******s.:mrgreen:
I didn't called his competition weak. :wink:

babbette
04-17-2011, 10:08 AM
Way to dish it back to the thick *******s :lol:
For all the complaining about Roger's era,I never see them whinning about their hero's dominance on clay :mrgreen:

Roger dominated everywhere with the exception of clay for a long while. Not the same callibre of "weakness" 8)

dave t
04-17-2011, 10:10 AM
are you guys kidding? if rafa is not the best on clay, who is? before someone calls me a ******* or whatever - I'm not a huge rafa fan at all... probably closer to ******* territory. I think regardless of personal favorites, you have to recognize just how good nadal really is.

mandy01
04-17-2011, 10:10 AM
Roger dominated everywhere with the exception of clay for a long while. Not the same callibre of "weakness" 8)So you concede that your boy's dominance has been due to weak competition (whatever calibre you want to put it down to).That's a start :lol:

Hitman
04-17-2011, 10:10 AM
Tell that to *******s.:mrgreen:
I never called his competition weak. :wink:

Whats the point in that? If the competition was weak for Federer, then it was also for Nadal. I mean think about it, who is the guy who has beaten Nadal the most on clay...the guy who he owns. Doesn't say much for anyone else.

truth is, it is what it is, Fedal stepped it up, and the others could not follow.

kevoT
04-17-2011, 10:11 AM
There is no such thing as a week era, only players that are superior to all the others...

mandy01
04-17-2011, 10:13 AM
Whats the point in that? If the competition was weak for Federer, then it was also for Nadal. .

Precisely my point mate.That's why I LOL when *******s whine about Fed's lack of competition.

babbette
04-17-2011, 10:15 AM
So you concede that your boy's dominance has been due to weak competition (whatever calibre you want to put it down to).That's a start :lol:

What I am saying is. when federer was dominant he pretty much ballet'ed his way through most matches on grass and hard, this would make a better argument for anybody playing in a weak era. But Rafa is dominant mostly on clay but it is much more of a struggle on other surfaces. So Rafa is superior on clay but his continuing struggle on other surfaces would suggest he is not competing in a weak era. The playing styles are much more aggressive now maybe that's why Roger is struggling to keep up now. Noot as weak as it once was :(

borg number one
04-17-2011, 10:17 AM
I think you're right Mandy01. I don't think that one could plausibly argue that the level of competition for Nadal was much different than that of Federer. You'd have to look at their primary competitors closely when they each were winning. The primary difference between what Nadal has faced versus what Federer has faced is really a structural one. Nadal's best surface is clay, but the Tour is weighted heavily now towards hard courts. He struggles a bit more on hard courts, but he's improving there significantly at this stage of his career. Federer could rely on his strength, hard courts, he has fewer opportunities per year to struggle on his "worst surface". Meanwhile, there are a lot of hard court tourneys for Nadal to face yearly. So the Tour's weighting makes it a bit more difficult for Nadal to be as "dominant". Yet, no matter what, in my opinion, Nadal's 2010 was possibly a better year than one of Federer's best years.

mandy01
04-17-2011, 10:20 AM
What I am saying is. when federer was dominant he pretty much ballet'ed his way through most matches on grass and hard, this would make a better argument for anybody playing in a weak era.You definitely did not watch Roger in that case.


The playing styles are much more aggressive now maybe that's why Roger is struggling to keep up now. Noot as weak as it once was :(Uhm..no.40 shot rallies and four hour slugfests on hard courts for 3 set matches =/= aggressive tennis.Bye.

Hitman
04-17-2011, 10:23 AM
Precisely my point mate.That's why I LOL when *******s whine about Fed's lack of competition.

I know what you mean...

Unless there is a magic army of incredible clay court Gods that appear just for the clay season, and vanish for the parts, then, yeah...I really do know what you mean.

It's not like boxing, where you have a heavy weight division, a middle weight and so on, where you can argue that one champion had tougher competition. Federer and Nadal played the same guys week in and week out for many years.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 10:28 AM
Precisely my point mate.That's why I LOL when *******s whine about Fed's lack of competition.

I lol when I look at the current top 10 players (made a separate thread about it), I mean seriously Melzer, Monfils, Berdych, Ferrer, Verdasco, Soderling all in the top 10 simultaneously?

The *********s need to make a case about Monfils or Melzer being better than prime Hewitt or prime Safin, DAMN a 34-year old Agassi would be top 5 now.

babbette
04-17-2011, 10:33 AM
There is no such thing as a week era, only players that are superior to all the others...

Maybe this is a bit closer to what I agree with even after all was said. (MAYBE)

Anyway why am I in this thread, haven't I learned by now that Fed fans will do everything they can to diminish Rafa's efforts and accomplishments, even more so now that their boy is struggling. :shock: We need to focus on Rafa's new threats not old threats (though he might be a threat again one day)

As you were, buh bye and enjoy 8)

tenis1
04-17-2011, 10:41 AM
Borg is still CCGOAT.
Nadal needs one more FO to be equal to Borg and two more to be indisputable CCGOAT,

Devilito
04-17-2011, 10:53 AM
the characteristics of being successful on a given surface varies. On clay, it’s physicality, speed and mental toughness. You can argue on fast carpet it would be talent, skill and reflexes. So the question shouldn’t be, “is Rafa the CCGOAT”, but, is Rafa the fastest most physical and mentally tough player. In terms of adding all those into an overall package I’d have to say yes.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 11:11 AM
Borg is still CCGOAT.
Nadal needs one more FO to be equal to Borg and two more to be indisputable CCGOAT,

Wow at Ken Rosewall who is ignored completely in the GOAT discussions even though he won more majors + major equivalents than Laver and was 6-4 against Rod in Slam/Pro finals.

Rosewall was the best clay courter for almost 20 years, from the early 50's till the late 60's, he won 7 French Pro titles IN A ROW + another French Pro title and 2 more French Opens (we're talking about the messy pre-open, pro and open eras).

Gotta admit that if Rosewall at his best played either Borg or Nadal at their best he would lose 6-0 6-0, that's how time works unfortunately and washes people's brains out.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 11:59 AM
Maybe that meant they were all equally as weak 8)

Nah, the talent level in the early 1990's was off the charts. Look at the top 10 list from the early 90's on another thread that somebody recently posted. Very strong pool.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 12:05 PM
Whats the point in that? If the competition was weak for Federer, then it was also for Nadal. I mean think about it, who is the guy who has beaten Nadal the most on clay...the guy who he owns. Doesn't say much for anyone else.

truth is, it is what it is, Fedal stepped it up, and the others could not follow.

So true. I mean all of these *******s saying Federer only won titles because he had such a weak era. Hello, Nadal has been part of that weak era for a long time as well. If Fed is so weak and Nadal has defeated Fed many times, how does that make Nadal so strong? The logic astounds me of some of these extreme *******s.

With that said, Nadal is DEFINITELY the current clay GOAT. He will be the clay GOAT of all time if he wins another FO or two and surpasses Borg's records.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 12:14 PM
Maybe this is a bit closer to what I agree with even after all was said. (MAYBE)

Anyway why am I in this thread, haven't I learned by now that Fed fans will do everything they can to diminish Rafa's efforts and accomplishments, even more so now that their boy is struggling. :shock: We need to focus on Rafa's new threats not old threats (though he might be a threat again one day)

As you were, buh bye and enjoy 8)

Babbette come on. Federer is struggling because he is almost 30. Give the guy a break. Nobody is equal to Fed in terms of overall achievements. Rafa is great no question, but bottom line is he has a lot of work to do to equal or better Fed. Nothing else matters, that is the bottom line. I understand loyal Rafa fans want to support him, but, stats and records don't lie. Looking at the h2h solely in summing up a person's entire career is just silly. There is so much more. I am not saying any of this to be belligerent and it is not directed at you personally.

P.S. Rafa's 7 straight win at MC is a great feat!

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 12:30 PM
Babbette come on. Federer is struggling because he is almost 30. Give the guy a break. Nobody is equal to Fed in terms of overall achievements. Rafa is great no question, but bottom line is he has a lot of work to do to equal or better Fed. Nothing else matters, that is the bottom line. I understand loyal Rafa fans want to support him, but, stats and records don't lie. Looking at the h2h solely in summing up a person's entire career is just silly. There is so much more. I am not saying any of this to be belligerent and it is not directed at you personally.

P.S. Rafa's 7 straight win at MC is a great feat!

Wow, this post gave me an erection.

Hitman
04-17-2011, 01:27 PM
So true. I mean all of these *******s saying Federer only won titles because he had such a weak era. Hello, Nadal has been part of that weak era for a long time as well. If Fed is so weak and Nadal has defeated Fed many times, how does that make Nadal so strong? The logic astounds me of some of these extreme *******s.

With that said, Nadal is DEFINITELY the current clay GOAT. He will be the clay GOAT of all time if he wins another FO or two and surpasses Borg's records.

For me, saying someone is the GOAT, even on a particular surface is difficult, too many variables. I can say however that if Nadal wins two more FO's, then he is the most accomplished player results wise on clay ever. And that in itself is an incredible feat.

Just like Federer for me is the most accomplised player of all time, with 16 slams to his name. I still would not call him GOAT...just that he has the best trophy cabinet around. :)

Cup8489
04-17-2011, 01:47 PM
What I am saying is. when federer was dominant he pretty much ballet'ed his way through most matches on grass and hard, this would make a better argument for anybody playing in a weak era. But Rafa is dominant mostly on clay but it is much more of a struggle on other surfaces. So Rafa is superior on clay but his continuing struggle on other surfaces would suggest he is not competing in a weak era. The playing styles are much more aggressive now maybe that's why Roger is struggling to keep up now. Noot as weak as it once was :(

so wait, when nadal was winning less titles outside of clay your argument is that it was a weaker era than now, when he's winning more titles? Not sure I follow that logic.. it could simply be Nadal sucked hard outside of clay until recently... which he did.

Rippy
04-17-2011, 02:39 PM
What I am saying is. when federer was dominant he pretty much ballet'ed his way through most matches on grass and hard, this would make a better argument for anybody playing in a weak era. But Rafa is dominant mostly on clay but it is much more of a struggle on other surfaces. So Rafa is superior on clay but his continuing struggle on other surfaces would suggest he is not competing in a weak era. The playing styles are much more aggressive now maybe that's why Roger is struggling to keep up now. Noot as weak as it once was :(

Yeah, but it's only a weak CLAY era. :)

cc0509
04-17-2011, 02:44 PM
For me, saying someone is the GOAT, even on a particular surface is difficult, too many variables. I can say however that if Nadal wins two more FO's, then he is the most accomplished player results wise on clay ever. And that in itself is an incredible feat.

Just like Federer for me is the most accomplised player of all time, with 16 slams to his name. I still would not call him GOAT...just that he has the best trophy cabinet around. :)

I agree with you 100%. This GOAT stuff is ridiculous. How can you compare players across generations with different conditions and variables? Silly.

I do think Nadal is the most accomplished clay court player just a shade behind Borg but I think he will surpass him pretty soon.

Roger I think is one of the greatest because of all of his achievements combined. If somebody can step up and surpass those achievements, super!

cc0509
04-17-2011, 02:44 PM
Wow, this post gave me an erection.

That is all it takes huh? :wink:

Cassius Clay
04-17-2011, 02:52 PM
For me, saying someone is the GOAT, even on a particular surface is difficult, too many variables. I can say however that if Nadal wins two more FO's, then he is the most accomplished player results wise on clay ever. And that in itself is an incredible feat.



Why two more FO's? I think one more in the bag would be more than enough since Nadal would have more clay titles than Borg (and more important ones) and the 81 consecutive matches record.

jackson vile
04-17-2011, 02:54 PM
GOAT discussion is for morons period. No, Nadal is not what ever moronic term you described, and neither is Roger.

IvanisevicServe
04-17-2011, 03:18 PM
It's hard to believe anybody could ever do better on clay in this era than Nadal has. The man has lost just 4 matches on the stuff since 2005. Doesn't get much better than that.

Tennis_Monk
04-17-2011, 03:22 PM
It is weak era. weak era of fans as we find them more n more logically challenged.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 05:03 PM
The eras aren't the same for Federer and Nadal in one important sense. Federer was a grown man playing youngsters, while Nadal was cutting his teeth on his peers. That's a big difference.

Federer was at the age that they are now, while Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were maturing as men and players. At the height of Federer's success Nadal was 19, Djokovic 18, and Murray 17. You think that's a fair fight?

Using many people's logic that would be worse than comparing Raonic who's just cutting his teeth on the tour with someone as accomplished as those who have been playing the big matches on tour for years.

Raonic is a good player (potentially great, from what we've seen), but he still has to pay his dues. He still has to learn to play a variety of different players and styles on the big stages, so to me, that's why the distinction exists.

tlm
04-17-2011, 05:30 PM
I think that until the last couple of years it has been a weak era on all surfaces. So with rafa being such a great clay courter it has been easier for him, during his run.

tlm
04-17-2011, 05:33 PM
The eras aren't the same for Federer and Nadal in one important sense. Federer was a grown man playing youngsters, while Nadal was cutting his teeth on his peers. That's a big difference.

Federer was at the age that they are now, while Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were maturing as men and players. At the height of Federer's success Nadal was 19, Djokovic 18, and Murray 17. You think that's a fair fight?

Using many people's logic that would be worse than comparing Raonic who's just cutting his teeth on the tour with someone as accomplished as those who have been playing the big matches on tour for years.

Raonic is a good player (potentially great, from what we've seen), but he still has to pay his dues. He still has to learn to play a variety of different players and styles on the big stages, so to me, that's why the distinction exists.

Exactly right + because of this fed benefitted immensely. Rafa has to, but he was a kid + still winning, now that he is in his prime the competition is much tougher than it was for fed while he was at his top.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 05:50 PM
Exactly right + because of this fed benefitted immensely. Rafa has to, but he was a kid + still winning, now that he is in his prime the competition is much tougher than it was for fed while he was at his top.

I couldn't put it any better. It's just that simple. Everything else is pure extrapolation.

Manus Domini
04-17-2011, 05:51 PM
The eras aren't the same for Federer and Nadal in one important sense. Federer was a grown man playing youngsters, while Nadal was cutting his teeth on his peers. That's a big difference.

Federer was at the age that they are now, while Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were maturing as men and players. At the height of Federer's success Nadal was 19, Djokovic 18, and Murray 17. You think that's a fair fight?

Using many people's logic that would be worse than comparing Raonic who's just cutting his teeth on the tour with someone as accomplished as those who have been playing the big matches on tour for years.

Raonic is a good player (potentially great, from what we've seen), but he still has to pay his dues. He still has to learn to play a variety of different players and styles on the big stages, so to me, that's why the distinction exists.

So, basically you're saying that age only matters when it benefits Nadal?

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 06:14 PM
So, basically you're saying that age only matters when it benefits Nadal?

No. I'm saying Fed Fans are constantly gloating 16>9, when Federer has a 5 year difference on Nadal.

Federer was 22-25 while his greatest competition were teenagers.

If we put that analogy into today's terms that would be like comparing Raonic to Nadal giving Nadal the benefit of maturation and experience.

That hardly seems fair to me.

Also, if Federer continues to play and the h2h widens further, why are so many Fed Fans already saying Fed is past his prime and if the youngsters beat him it's no big deal?

That to me is a glaring double standard. It's okay for Fed to have his hc record over Nadal when he's five years older, but it's moot if Nadal, who is now in his prime beats a past his prime Federer?

Where do you think I said this?

Manus Domini
04-17-2011, 06:26 PM
No. I'm saying Fed Fans are constantly gloating 16>9, when Federer has a 5 year difference on Nadal.

Federer was 22-25 while his greatest competition were teenagers.

If we put that analogy into today's terms that would be like comparing Raonic to Nadal giving Nadal the benefit of maturation and experience.

That hardly seems fair to me.

Also, if Federer continues to play and the h2h widens further, why are so many Fed Fans already saying Fed is past his prime and if the youngsters beat him it's no big deal?

That to me is a glaring double standard. It's okay for Fed to have his hc record over Nadal when he's five years older, but it's moot if Nadal, who is now in his prime beats a past his prime Federer?

Where do you think I said this?

Nadal was beating Fed while still a teenager, so please don't bring out the "Fed was whooping teenagers" excuse.

And don't forget that his biggest competition wasn't always teenagers. I mean, unless Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Safin changed their birth records that is.

cc0509
04-17-2011, 06:31 PM
I must be missing something. What does Federer or Nadal's age have anything to do with it? At the end of both of their careers the only thing that will matter are their records and achievements. One of the most important of these records is the grand slam total. It does not matter if Nadal was 14 when he started winning or if Fed is 90 when he wins his last slam. Who cares?
At the end of the day will Nadal have more than 16 slams or however many Federer ends his career with? That is it. That is all she wrote.
Everything else is nonsense.

Omega_7000
04-17-2011, 06:36 PM
Nadal was beating Fed while still a teenager, so please don't bring out the "Fed was whooping teenagers" excuse.

And don't forget that his biggest competition wasn't always teenagers. I mean, unless Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Safin changed their birth records that is.

Nadal has ALWYS been a bad match-up for Fed & Fed has been kind of unlucky to have his weakness match up so badly against the # 2 ranked players strength.

Nadal was taking it to Fed even when he was a teenager while losing to other players because his game matches up well against Fed's & we all know how important match-ups are in tennis.

TheTruth
04-17-2011, 06:40 PM
Nadal was beating Fed while still a teenager, so please don't bring out the "Fed was whooping teenagers" excuse.

And don't forget that his biggest competition wasn't always teenagers. I mean, unless Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Safin changed their birth records that is.

He was beating Fed, but he was still a teenager.

No. Hewitt went out one year with the chicken pox and never returned to full form. Nalbandian has been in and out of the tour for years, and Safin was there and not there at the same time.

I don't think this changes anything that I've said.

$$$$mony$$$$
04-17-2011, 07:55 PM
smoke weed everyday u bimbos

Murrayfan31
04-17-2011, 09:34 PM
No. Borg is.

IvanisevicServe
04-17-2011, 10:22 PM
But in terms of clay court era...Nadal has dominated since 2005, which was right in the middle of Federer's prime. People love using the "da competiton wuz week" excuse for Federer, yet Nadal's dominance on clay was against those same players.

Plus, people say the competition was "weak" in large part because nobody else (aside from Nadal, of course) won anything. But the same goes for Nadal on clay...he has won everything in sight on clay...so by that same token, it must then be a "weak clay era."

piece
04-17-2011, 10:23 PM
Federer was 22-25 while his greatest competition were teenagers.


I'm sure most people already understand what I'm about to say and so my post is probably unecessary, but this^ simply isn't true. Nadal, who was a teenager for most of Fed's prime was the only teenager who was part of his "greatest competition". Djokovic was only in the picture in 2007 - the last year of Federer's prime. The rest of Federer's main competition were guys around his age or older. It boggles the mind that people could think otherwise.

namelessone
04-17-2011, 11:25 PM
The eras aren't the same for Federer and Nadal in one important sense. Federer was a grown man playing youngsters, while Nadal was cutting his teeth on his peers. That's a big difference.

Federer was at the age that they are now, while Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray were maturing as men and players. At the height of Federer's success Nadal was 19, Djokovic 18, and Murray 17. You think that's a fair fight?

Using many people's logic that would be worse than comparing Raonic who's just cutting his teeth on the tour with someone as accomplished as those who have been playing the big matches on tour for years.

Raonic is a good player (potentially great, from what we've seen), but he still has to pay his dues. He still has to learn to play a variety of different players and styles on the big stages, so to me, that's why the distinction exists.

There is some truth to the "beating teenagers" part as djoker and murray were basically non-factors most of the time in 04-07 period where fed was concerned and Nadal was the only one giving him grief.

However, the other guys were NOT teenagers. Nalbandian,Hewitt,Roddick,Davydenko,Safin were certainly not young. One could argue about how much of "rivals" they were since they were not a constant threat throughout Fed's prime(hewitt's last good years coincided with Fed's first great ones, nalbandian/safin were brilliant but very inconsistent, davy was decent and roddick was and remains Fed's pigeon).

mandy01
04-17-2011, 11:29 PM
I'm sure most people already understand what I'm about to say and so my post is probably unecessary, but this^ simply isn't true. Nadal, who was a teenager for most of Fed's prime was the only teenager who was part of his "greatest competition". Djokovic was only in the picture in 2007 - the last year of Federer's prime. The rest of Federer's main competition were guys around his age or older. It boggles the mind that people could think otherwise.Exactly. Who were these 'teens' that were Fed's 'greatest competition?'Nadal was 19 in 2005 and had won his first slam.He doesn't even BEGIN to compare to Raonic.LOL! In 06/07,he was already in 20s .So how was he a 'teenager' again?
And it doesn't change the argument that Nadal has played pretty much the SAME pool of players since 05 as Fed to dominate on clay where the vast majority of his titles and overall results come from.So if you're going to call Fed's competition weak it automatically makes Nadal's competition just as weaker It's not like even Djokovic has been a constant threat to Nadal on clay save 2009.And no matter what anyone has to say,he has never beaten Nadal on clay.The only guy to do so,particularly in a final is Roger.So that leaves Nadal's competition in pretty much the same place as Fed's.If anything Fed faced much more opposition on HC than Nadal ever did on clay.

mandy01
04-17-2011, 11:38 PM
roddick was and remains Fed's pigeon.

That pidgeon has made 3 Wimbledon finals almost winning one or I'd even say two..Much more than you can say for any of Nadal's 'pidgeons.'
Oh and a past his prime Roddick has beaten Djokovic several times by now and caused him to retire due to 'heat'.:mrgreen:

namelessone
04-18-2011, 12:02 AM
That pidgeon has made 3 Wimbledon finals almost winning one or I'd even say two..Much more than you can say for any of Nadal's 'pidgeons.'
Oh and a past his prime Roddick has beaten Djokovic several times by now and caused him to retire due to 'heat'.:mrgreen:

A 20-2 h2h pretty much spells out pigeon.

The only GS final he had any shot it was WB 2009. If I'm being generous I'll say WB 2004 just cause he won the first set.

Other than that he suffered many,many defeats at the hands of Federer, regardless of surface.

Novak and Murray have beaten Nadal and have pushed him many times.

I like Roddick's passion for the game and the work he puts in but he will always be remembered for 2 things:

-one of the best serves of all time.
-the guy that simply couldn't beat Federer no matter what venue or what form they were in.

mandy01
04-18-2011, 12:32 AM
ANovak and Murray have beaten Nadal and have pushed him many times.
So? Lots of players have beaten or pushed Nadal on Hard Courts.Even Roddick,Federer's 'pidgeon' beat him last year.That's why he's only made two finals of HC slams(although,to his credit,he did win both).It happens all the time.We're talking of his clay dominance.Try harder.

Rippy
04-18-2011, 12:44 AM
I'm sure most people already understand what I'm about to say and so my post is probably unecessary, but this^ simply isn't true. Nadal, who was a teenager for most of Fed's prime was the only teenager who was part of his "greatest competition". Djokovic was only in the picture in 2007 - the last year of Federer's prime. The rest of Federer's main competition were guys around his age or older. It boggles the mind that people could think otherwise.

Exactly...

35ft6
04-18-2011, 12:53 AM
It's not even close. He's the best clay courter I've ever seen. Just a beast.

Hitman
04-18-2011, 03:04 AM
But in terms of clay court era...Nadal has dominated since 2005, which was right in the middle of Federer's prime. People love using the "da competiton wuz week" excuse for Federer, yet Nadal's dominance on clay was against those same players.

Plus, people say the competition was "weak" in large part because nobody else (aside from Nadal, of course) won anything. But the same goes for Nadal on clay...he has won everything in sight on clay...so by that same token, it must then be a "weak clay era."


I'm sure most people already understand what I'm about to say and so my post is probably unecessary, but this^ simply isn't true. Nadal, who was a teenager for most of Fed's prime was the only teenager who was part of his "greatest competition". Djokovic was only in the picture in 2007 - the last year of Federer's prime. The rest of Federer's main competition were guys around his age or older. It boggles the mind that people could think otherwise.

Exactly. Who were these 'teens' that were Fed's 'greatest competition?'Nadal was 19 in 2005 and had won his first slam.He doesn't even BEGIN to compare to Raonic.LOL! In 06/07,he was already in 20s .So how was he a 'teenager' again?
And it doesn't change the argument that Nadal has played pretty much the SAME pool of players since 05 as Fed to dominate on clay where the vast majority of his titles and overall results come from.So if you're going to call Fed's competition weak it automatically makes Nadal's competition just as weaker It's not like even Djokovic has been a constant threat to Nadal on clay save 2009.And no matter what anyone has to say,he has never beaten Nadal on clay.The only guy to do so,particularly in a final is Roger.So that leaves Nadal's competition in pretty much the same place as Fed's.If anything Fed faced much more opposition on HC than Nadal ever did on clay.

You can't really convince the *******s that Nadal is facing the same competiton that Federer did, despite the fact that Nadal's clay court dominance was almost parallel to Federer's on other surfaces. What has age got to do with it, when the guy is moping the floor on clay for the last seven years? No matter how you cut it, Nadal and Federer have been playing the same players for many years. And if competition is soooo much tougher on clay now, then why is Nadal still destroying everyone even without playing his best?

The truth is Nadal's clay court competition has been from the same pool that Federer's been. And they rise has been almost parallel. If Federer had it easy, then so has Nadal. And exactly how is the competition so much more drastically tougher now...?

If Nadal, after injuring his leg and being on the bench for several weeks, can come back, on his WORST surface, that is often highlighted here, go through back to back draws in IW and Miami and get to the FINAL and push Djoker to three sets both times....what exactly does that say about the depth of competiton that Nadal is facing these days then? Forget the clay!!!!!

But all things aside, Fedal stepped up, and the others have not been able to.

Hitman
04-18-2011, 03:09 AM
A 20-2 h2h pretty much spells out pigeon.

The only GS final he had any shot it was WB 2009. If I'm being generous I'll say WB 2004 just cause he won the first set.

Other than that he suffered many,many defeats at the hands of Federer, regardless of surface.

Novak and Murray have beaten Nadal and have pushed him many times.

I like Roddick's passion for the game and the work he puts in but he will always be remembered for 2 things:

-one of the best serves of all time.
-the guy that simply couldn't beat Federer no matter what venue or what form they were in.


My repsonse to this is, Federer and Roddick both preferred grass, and the hard courts in that order. and Federer was just better.

You say Novak and Andy have beaten Nadal. Okay. But are their preferred surfaces the same? No.

Nadal's surface is clay, and how many times have Novak and Andy beat him on that surface? and then it is grass, how many times have they beat him on that surface?
so their rivarly is slightly different, Nadal can still beat them both on their favorite and his worst surface, they can't even beat him on his second best surface yet.

Marius_Hancu
04-18-2011, 03:41 AM
Waiting for the RG to see if he equals Borg with six. That's the main standard.

tlm
04-18-2011, 05:24 AM
But in terms of clay court era...Nadal has dominated since 2005, which was right in the middle of Federer's prime. People love using the "da competiton wuz week" excuse for Federer, yet Nadal's dominance on clay was against those same players.

Plus, people say the competition was "weak" in large part because nobody else (aside from Nadal, of course) won anything. But the same goes for Nadal on clay...he has won everything in sight on clay...so by that same token, it must then be a "weak clay era."

I think it has been a weak clay era, up until last year it has been weak on every surface.

lemon
04-18-2011, 05:34 AM
I'm getting lost in abbreviations... wtf this CCGOAT is?

I'd rather call him APMCDGOAT.

miyagi
04-18-2011, 05:41 AM
I suspect he is......BUT he has to Prove it first and the 6th title at RG will probably be enough for me.

He is certainly crazy dominant but I will reserve judgement who knows what is around the corner!

billnepill
04-18-2011, 08:48 AM
LOL. It's called a "weak clay era" because Nadal beats everyone and takes nearly all the titles.

I don't think there is GOAT or should be GOAT.

However, I find it funny that there are people who see Nadal as the clay GOAT and refute the notion of Federer being the GOAT based solely on weak competition.

ROFL.

asafi2
04-18-2011, 09:16 AM
I don't think there is GOAT or should be GOAT.

However, I find it funny that there are people who see Nadal as the clay GOAT and refute the notion of Federer being the GOAT based solely on weak competition.

ROFL.

My point exactly good sir/madame!

tenniswarrior
04-18-2011, 09:25 AM
Yes.

http://0.tqn.com/d/miniatures/1/0/D/h/-/-/KP_Billygoat.jpg

MixieP
04-18-2011, 09:57 AM
Is Rafa really the CCGOAT?

The answer is yes.

Murrayfan31
04-18-2011, 10:47 AM
It's not even close. He's the best clay courter I've ever seen. Just a beast.
The key word is seen. You didn't watch Borg play.

TheTruth
04-18-2011, 01:04 PM
I'm sure most people already understand what I'm about to say and so my post is probably unecessary, but this^ simply isn't true. Nadal, who was a teenager for most of Fed's prime was the only teenager who was part of his "greatest competition". Djokovic was only in the picture in 2007 - the last year of Federer's prime. The rest of Federer's main competition were guys around his age or older. It boggles the mind that people could think otherwise.

I agree. I think Nadal was his only competition. Novak and Murray coming around in 2007-2008 were still able to be competitive and give him a challenge.

Like who? Lleyton, Safin, Nalbandian, Haas, Blake, Ferrero, et al were transitionary players on tour due to injuries. The bulk of Fed's competition was Roddick, Ljubicic, Llodra, these are the guys around Federer's age and there were rarely on tour for a full season (with the exception of Llodra).

I guess a better question would be to ask you who thought was worthy competition during that time, because outside of the teenagers I don't see anyone who was consistently on tour and had big match experience.

TheTruth
04-18-2011, 01:12 PM
There is some truth to the "beating teenagers" part as djoker and murray were basically non-factors most of the time in 04-07 period where fed was concerned and Nadal was the only one giving him grief.

However, the other guys were NOT teenagers. Nalbandian,Hewitt,Roddick,Davydenko,Safin were certainly not young. One could argue about how much of "rivals" they were since they were not a constant threat throughout Fed's prime(hewitt's last good years coincided with Fed's first great ones, nalbandian/safin were brilliant but very inconsistent, davy was decent and roddick was and remains Fed's pigeon).

No, they weren't teenagers, but they weren't on tour for sustained periods of time either.

Lleyton went out with chicken pox, returned and then went back out with a hip injury.

Ferrerro also left with chicken pox and was never the same.

Escude left the tour injured, as did Joachim Johannson?

Has Nalbandian ever played a full year on tour?

Roddick? OK, I accept him as viable competition with his 2-20 record.

Davydenko, please, the human backboard who forgets how to return 99% of the time that he plays Federer.

Safin, the tortured genius who spent more time partying than playing?

Essentially you're saying the same thing as I am. One could argue with how they were rivals.

TheTruth
04-18-2011, 01:32 PM
Let's say this is a weak era.

That doesn't mean someone like Raonic will be able to run through the field. He still has to gain experience and big match toughness on the ATP. He still has to face a variety of styles and learn how to deal with experienced veterans. So, whether the field is strong or weak makes no difference, he still has to go through his growing pains.

Change his age to 22-25 with the resultant experience and everything changes. Only at that point will we have an idea about him and his game. Many come as the "next best thing" and fall off the tennis radar. So, I have nothing to say about the state of Raonic's game with so little data.

You simply cannot compare a prime person with a pre-prime, or past their prime player and get a good analysis.

For example:

You can't compare Fed to Nadal, et al. when he is that much older than Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray.

Conversely, you can't compare Raonic to Nadal who is older and more experienced.

And it's insane to compare Fed to his contemporaries when most of them weren't even on the tour full time after 2003.

Lastly, I don't ascribe to the GOAT theory as I think it's just a sneaky way to assume superiority, another theory I don't believe in. Where a lot of posters get tripped up I think is in applying their standards to other people and assuming everyone thinks the same. There are way more people on here saying Fed is better, Nadal's game is ugly, Nadal won't last, etc. I don't say such things, all I've ever said is that I prefer Nadal and I don't see a problem with that.

I have never said Nadal was better than Federer, Nadal was the GOAT, or Fed wasn't the GOAT. That doesn't concern me in the least. Ongoing careers cannot properly be assessed imo. The rub is that that's exactly what many others are trying to do, hence the frustration.

piece
04-18-2011, 02:03 PM
I agree. I think Nadal was his only competition. Novak and Murray coming around in 2007-2008 were still able to be competitive and give him a challenge.

Like who? Lleyton, Safin, Nalbandian, Haas, Blake, Ferrero, et al were transitionary players on tour due to injuries. The bulk of Fed's competition was Roddick, Ljubicic, Llodra, these are the guys around Federer's age and there were rarely on tour for a full season (with the exception of Llodra).

I guess a better question would be to ask you who thought was worthy competition during that time, because outside of the teenagers I don't see anyone who was consistently on tour and had big match experience.

Even if this were true it's irrelevant. Who cares if any one player from Federer's main competition could rarely complete a full season, all that matters is that at any given time there was sufficient good competition from players from Federer's generation. It's obvious to me that there was.

Proponents of weak era theories tend to have very weak arguments, and I'd rather not get drawn into one. I'll just say that every one of these kind of arguments that I've encountered fails for a similar reason, and many posters have done a great job of elucidating these failings in the past.

TheTruth
04-18-2011, 02:11 PM
Even if this were true it's irrelevant. Who cares if any one player from Federer's main competition could rarely complete a full season, all that matters is that at any given time there was sufficient good competition from players from Federer's generation. It's obvious to me that there was.

Proponents of weak era theories tend to have very weak arguments, and I'd rather not get drawn into one. I'll just say that every one of these kind of arguments that I've encountered fails for a similar reason, and many posters have done a great job of elucidating these failings in the past.

Everything we say on this board is irrelevant. It's all subjective opinion and therefore shouldn't be argued anyway.

Poster A: Has an opinion.
Poster B: Disagrees and states why

That's it. When it turns into arguing I think that's silly. A and B have a right to their opinion. That's it. I don't know why it ever turns into anything more than that.

35ft6
04-18-2011, 02:42 PM
The key word is seen. You didn't watch Borg play.I've seen Nadal on TV. And I've seen Borg on TV. I'm not basing all my tennis opinions on stuff I've seen in person.

Here, watch Lendl and Borg at the 1981 French Open Finals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

It's not even close. The game was different back then but I'm not going to penalize Nadal for that. The game is forever evolving. Look at footage of guys from the 1950's and you see a HUGE difference in the game in the 1970's despite the fact that most guys were still using wooden rackets. You can't attribute the change to equipment, it was just guys emulating their predecessors but taking it a bit further each generation.

It can be argued that point construction isn't the same today. When you grew up playing with wood, you had to think ahead, it was more strategic and less of a running and hitting contest. You could also argue now that grass has slowed down, you see way less racket skills. Grass was all about improvisation and having good racket head control and taking calculated risks. But IMO the clay court tennis today is the toughest and best it's ever been. Fittest, strongest athletes, most powerful hitting. Just watch the videos, they speak for themselves. Lendl and Borg look like they're drilling compared to what you see today.

4th round from Roland Garros 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DeG3ArxPE).

piece
04-18-2011, 04:59 PM
Everything we say on this board is irrelevant. It's all subjective opinion and therefore shouldn't be argued anyway.

Poster A: Has an opinion.
Poster B: Disagrees and states why

That's it. When it turns into arguing I think that's silly. A and B have a right to their opinion. That's it. I don't know why it ever turns into anything more than that.

Haha right you are.

I don't agree, however, that the accuracy of someone's opinion is necessarily a relative or subjective matter. Some opinions are wrong, others are right. Arguments can help us to ascertain which value (true or false/right or wrong) we should assign to a given opinion.

35ft6
04-18-2011, 05:09 PM
^ Everything is not subjective. Lets start with this: Nadal is a better clay court singles player than Justin Gimelstob. Cool?

MagneticCurls
04-18-2011, 05:49 PM
Everything we say on this board is irrelevant. It's all subjective opinion and therefore shouldn't be argued anyway.

Poster A: Has an opinion.
Poster B: Disagrees and states why

That's it. When it turns into arguing I think that's silly. A and B have a right to their opinion. That's it. I don't know why it ever turns into anything more than that.

This too being subjective and irrelevant?

tlm
04-18-2011, 06:27 PM
I've seen Nadal on TV. And I've seen Borg on TV. I'm not basing all my tennis opinions on stuff I've seen in person.

Here, watch Lendl and Borg at the 1981 French Open Finals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

It's not even close. The game was different back then but I'm not going to penalize Nadal for that. The game is forever evolving. Look at footage of guys from the 1950's and you see a HUGE difference in the game in the 1970's despite the fact that most guys were still using wooden rackets. You can't attribute the change to equipment, it was just guys emulating their predecessors but taking it a bit further each generation.

It can be argued that point construction isn't the same today. When you grew up playing with wood, you had to think ahead, it was more strategic and less of a running and hitting contest. You could also argue now that grass has slowed down, you see way less racket skills. Grass was all about improvisation and having good racket head control and taking calculated risks. But IMO the clay court tennis today is the toughest and best it's ever been. Fittest, strongest athletes, most powerful hitting. Just watch the videos, they speak for themselves. Lendl and Borg look like they're drilling compared to what you see today.

4th round from Roland Garros 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DeG3ArxPE).

That is some slo motion tennis there, looks like 4.0 club level. Does not even come close to todays game.

borg number one
04-18-2011, 06:35 PM
TLM, I know you're probably being somewhat facetious, but are you seriously suggesting that Borg and Lendl were playing like the "average" club player from today? Wow, the talent at clubs these days has gone through the roof! Here's Lendl and Borg indoors in Jan. 1981. Borg and Lendl are two of the best clay courters ever. There are no 4.5's, 5.5's, or 6.5's these days that are in their league.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

DjokerIsTheBest
04-18-2011, 06:35 PM
And 30 years from now the Nadal - Belluci match will also be considered 4.0. Today's game won't come close to that in 2040.

asafi2
04-18-2011, 06:56 PM
That is some slo motion tennis there, looks like 4.0 club level. Does not even come close to todays game.

http://articles.boston.com/2010-04-29/sports/29280586_1_tennis-history-wimbledon-bjorn-borg

Tennis great Bjorn Borg taught at Harvard yesterday, but not in the classroom.

"The 11-time Grand Slam champion schooled the Crimson’s Alexei Chijoff-Evans, a talented 21-year-old junior whom Borg ran nonstop for nearly an hour on the court at Murr Center. Borg, still lean but now gray at 53, barely broke a sweat, displaying an array of forehands, backhands, and surgically placed lobs.

“You’re so outrageously fit,’’ Chijoff-Evans told the living legend. “You’re just cruising. I’m dying.’'"

tlm
04-18-2011, 07:51 PM
TLM, I know you're probably being somewhat facetious, but are you seriously suggesting that Borg and Lendl were playing like the "average" club player from today? Wow, the talent at clubs these days has gone through the roof! Here's Lendl and Borg indoors in Jan. 1981. Borg and Lendl are two of the best clay courters ever. There are no 4.5's, 5.5's, or 6.5's these days that are in their league.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jZmFMUGTTU

The indoor sped it up a little, but still looks like it is so slow compared to today. This Tennis is very very weak compared to the modern game we are watching today. You guys have to be more than somewhat facetious to even try to compare it to todays high speed game. As Mac used to say you cant be serious !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

borg number one
04-18-2011, 08:00 PM
TLM, we'll have to agree to disagree. The racquets make a huge difference in terms of power, although Borg is using a wood frame versus a graphite frame in those clips. Borg, Nadal, and Rosewall are at the very top among clay courters. Here's Borg on green clay in 1979 facing Connors displaying some pure clay court wizardry (Bancroft vs. T2000 on rubico).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (Thanks to Krosero)

http://uenomurakami.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/nadal-borg.jpg?w=412&h=232

http://www.active.com/Assets/Tennis/ken_rosewall_150x150.jpg

tlm
04-18-2011, 08:09 PM
TLM, we'll have to agree to disagree. The racquets make a huge difference in terms of power, although Borg is using a wood frame verus a graphite frame in those clips. Borg, Nadal, and Rosewall are at the very top among clay courters. Here's Borg on green clay in 1979 facing Connors displaying some pure clay court wizardry (Bancroft vs. T2000 on rubico).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTMx--E0OhY (Thanks to Krosero)

http://uenomurakami.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/nadal-borg.jpg?w=412&h=232

http://www.active.com/Assets/Tennis/ken_rosewall_150x150.jpg

No doubt the equipment makes a big difference, but i think the players today are better athletes also. By the way this clip was some pretty good tennis compared to the others.

TheTruth
04-18-2011, 08:17 PM
Haha right you are.

I don't agree, however, that the accuracy of someone's opinion is necessarily a relative or subjective matter. Some opinions are wrong, others are right. Arguments can help us to ascertain which value (true or false/right or wrong) we should assign to a given opinion.

That's true.

Lovely wording. I see what you mean. I guess it depends on the issue, but I do love what you wrote and how you presented it. Very nice.

I guess I feel that most things, can be supported either way depending on the points you present. Based on what you said I agree with your premise. Thank you.

borg number one
04-18-2011, 08:29 PM
No doubt the equipment makes a big difference, but i think the players today are better athletes also. By the way this clip was some pretty good tennis compared to the others.

I think that tennis today is more about the legs than ever before, but Borg's leg strength for example was measured to be extreme. His quickness, speed, and stamina were stellar as well. He and Edberg stood out among Swedish tennis players when they measured leg strength. Borg's leg press readings in Sweden surpassed the readings Olympic champion downhill skier, Ingemar Stenmark (no tennis players were close). I'd say only Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and perhaps Ferrer are in Borg's league when it comes to movement. Borg faced down some all time great baseliners too, like Connors, Lendl, and Vilas. See this excerpt from a Time article on Bjorn Borg.

Borg's physical gifts alone would have been enough to make him extraordinary: regular pulse rate 35, usual blood pressure 70 over 30. His countryman Ingemar Stenmark, the slalom skier, placed second to him in a European health institute's study of the strength in athletes' legs. Then there were Borg's instincts. He was fitted with enough quickness even before trophy was installed, magnified by his almost eerie eyesight. "He's a robot from outer space," was always Court Jester Ilie Nastase's hushed theory, "a Martian."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,923327,00.html#ixzz1JwNU5NHK

ninman
04-18-2011, 08:38 PM
I've seen Nadal on TV. And I've seen Borg on TV. I'm not basing all my tennis opinions on stuff I've seen in person.

Here, watch Lendl and Borg at the 1981 French Open Finals (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW4z0FnUz4o).

It's not even close. The game was different back then but I'm not going to penalize Nadal for that. The game is forever evolving. Look at footage of guys from the 1950's and you see a HUGE difference in the game in the 1970's despite the fact that most guys were still using wooden rackets. You can't attribute the change to equipment, it was just guys emulating their predecessors but taking it a bit further each generation.

It can be argued that point construction isn't the same today. When you grew up playing with wood, you had to think ahead, it was more strategic and less of a running and hitting contest. You could also argue now that grass has slowed down, you see way less racket skills. Grass was all about improvisation and having good racket head control and taking calculated risks. But IMO the clay court tennis today is the toughest and best it's ever been. Fittest, strongest athletes, most powerful hitting. Just watch the videos, they speak for themselves. Lendl and Borg look like they're drilling compared to what you see today.

4th round from Roland Garros 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DeG3ArxPE).

No, no, no that video of Borg Vs Lendl was really the Wimbledon Championships from 2010.

tlm
04-18-2011, 08:38 PM
I think that tennis today is more about the legs than ever before, but Borg's leg strength for example was measured to be extreme. His quickness, speed, and stamina were stellar as well. He and Edberg stood out among Swedish tennis players when they measured leg strength. Borg's leg press readings in Sweden surpassed the readings Olympic champion downhill skier, Ingemar Stenmark (no tennis players were close). I'd say only Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and perhaps Ferrer are in Borg's league when it comes to movement. Borg faced down some all time great baseliners too, like Connors, Lendl, and Vilas. See this excerpt from a Time article on Bjorn Borg.

Cant take anything away from borg he is a true legend, it is a shame he quit in his prime. I really think that he probably is the goat of tennis.

35ft6
04-18-2011, 08:51 PM
And 30 years from now the Nadal - Belluci match will also be considered 4.0. Today's game won't come close to that in 2040.It really could. All the best athletes in America play basketball and football. If somehow tennis could become less cost prohibitive, and if we don't destroy the planet by then, maybe better athletes will start playing and maybe even a Lebron James type guy with a Isner serve and Nadal agility.

And there will probably be more technical evolution, things we can't foresee. The straight arm and extreme closed face supination (or is it pronation) on Nadal's forehand probably isn't something anybody could have predicted. Having the racket head tilted forward by a few degrees at contact, that's something else no instructor was probably teaching 30 years ago. Who knows what we might see but I'm sure tennis will be even more brutal in 30 years.

mcr619619
04-18-2011, 09:13 PM
Nadal CCGOAT no doubt IMO, he just won almost every CC tourney he played, he's playing style suit the CC very well, Peak Nadal will beat Peak Fed in clay like 9/10 or 8/10.. and i'm a really die hard Fed fan, and i don't like Nad...
and Nadal don't need to win another RG to prove his better than Borg in CC..

but NADAL is only CCGOAT, FED is GOAT..

and yeah, tennis is not that aggressive like the past year, too much baseline grinding and slower courts...

borg number one
04-18-2011, 09:53 PM
I don't think that the best players 30 years from now on clay will be necessarily greater than either Borg, or Nadal, for that matter. I also think that there may a size sweet spot in tennis. Being taller entails certain tradeoffs (quickness, injuries?, stamina?) and the requirements on clay courts especially mean that you have to have substantial stamina over 4-5 sets, combined with great quickness/speed as well as shotmaking/consistency on offense. After all, the court is likely to remain the same size and players will always have to move very quickly, point after point within those limited dimensions. Being around 6 ft. tall just seems to work really well in tennis, though there are many anomalies. So, I'm not so sure that players that are very tall will necessarily dominate in say 30 years. I wonder if the rules will stay intact 30 years from now? I hope we can keep tennis basically the way it is, without much drastic change when it comes to tour structure, rules, formats, etc. Of course, there are likely to be technical changes, but I wonder when and if the Tour will put restrictions upon specs, say for example, racquets have to be no larger than 100 sq. inches. etc.

piece
04-18-2011, 11:11 PM
That's true.

Lovely wording. I see what you mean. I guess it depends on the issue, but I do love what you wrote and how you presented it. Very nice.

I guess I feel that most things, can be supported either way depending on the points you present. Based on what you said I agree with your premise. Thank you.

Wow. Thank you for the extremely complimentary post. That's something you rarely see around here.

It does depend on the issue, for sure. For example, when people say Safin is better looking than Sampras, I'd be inclined to think that rational argument won't be a particularly useful tool for evaluating their position.

Again, I agree that almost any position (or its contrary) can be well supported by argument, depending on what points are made. Consequently, our evaluation of any given issue or position on an issue will tend to fall short of perfect objectivity - we simply lack the knowledge and motivation to do any better. However, I'd refrain from saying that any of this imobjectively point of view is objectively true. Rather, it is people who provide inadequate justification for, or let subjectivity seep in to, some position that they take.

I'd say that, once we settle on an objective set of criteria for era weakness it is, in principle, possible to evaluate whether an era is weak or not. But good luck with getting a large group of people to agree on any such criteria, let alone agree on which era's satisfy said criteria.

This is pretty far from the topic of the thread, so I'll stop rambling. But I'm glad to encounter someone who is willing to change their mind about something. It's a very rare quality.

cocolate
04-19-2011, 02:14 AM
This is a weak clay era....who was Nadal's biggest threat for so many years?
Federer:
-1 handed backhand
-easter forehand grip
-likes to come to the net
-uses serve to get out of trouble
-attacking mentality
-doesn't like to grind balls
-loves to hit flat shots
-wins matches by hitting lots of winners

all of the above don't go that well on clay
as opposed to
Nadal:
-defensive player
-likes to grind balls 5 hours non-stop
-two handed backhand
-eastern forehand grip
-likes to hit moonballs
-king of spin

if you thing this is a strong era:LOL

mcr619619
04-19-2011, 02:53 AM
^Nadal uses Semi Western or Western i think, but not Eastern.

yeah, maybe your right in Fed Disadvantage, but what if Nadal were never been a tennis player, and Clay tourney titles goes to Fed like 4 or 5/10 and the rest to other players, would it be consider a strong area bec. more than 2 players win Clay Titles?..

it's just that Nadal is too strong in clay and winning almost all the CC titles make this Era weak? i dont think so..

this Era is some what strong, but not weak...

and you know why Fed is the only one who battled Nad in Clay Courts finals is Fed is just too good..^^... Fed least fave Surface is Clay, yet he's a top 10 all time in clay, though he don't have many clay court titles, it's because of Nadal, so you have the best Clay Court Player in History and a top 8 or 9 CC player in FED..this CC Era is great

cocolate
04-19-2011, 04:32 AM
i meant semi-western sorry......Well if a player like federer is the greatest rival Nadal has on clay then there are 2 options:
1)Weak era
2)Strong era and Nadal is the Goat of CLAY but then you have to admit that Federer is the best player that ever played the game because he is on his worst surface second to Nadal which in this case is the greatest clay-courter ever.

But you see maybe Federer would have been even worse against other clay-courters and that means Nadal isn't the clay court goat....anyway probably it's the second case....but Federer was not built for clay in comparison to grass and hard.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 06:03 AM
Tennis is still pretty 'white' oriented. Once it becomes more accessible to other races like African Americans, it will go the route of basketball and track.

cocolate
04-19-2011, 06:12 AM
Tennis is still pretty 'white' oriented. Once it becomes more accessible to other races like African Americans, it will go the route of basketball and track.

in tennis physical power isn't everything, look at Monfils...

Scorch
04-19-2011, 06:20 AM
Deciding if Nadal is CCGOAT by way of debating how good Federer is on clay is totally flawed.

Nadal is soooooooo far ahead of any other good CC players that saying that talking about how good Federer is on the red stuff is next to irrelevant in this thread.

To answer the questions, yes Nadal is the CCGOAT. His record is already phenomenal and will only get better this year.

forthegame
04-19-2011, 07:09 AM
Nice write-up on the ATP site. Thought about starting a thread but naaah.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/04/Other/FedEx-Reliability-Career-Clay-Court-Record.aspx

Rafa tops the clay court all-time rankings. Guga, Borg, Muster should know!

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 07:18 AM
in tennis physical power isn't everything, look at Monfils...

Agreed, but athleticism is a huge part of it. The best athletes in the world are???

35ft6
04-19-2011, 07:19 AM
^ And yet, the top players have a lot of power. And right now, the top 4 players, in Nadal, Novak, Murray, and even a slowing Fed, are the best movers in the sport. Maybe not the outright fastest, but best movers. Just imagine an NBA guard quality mover or NFL tail back quality mover on a tennis court. That's something we really haven't seen yet. When Black was considered the fastest guy in tennis, his fitness trainer reluctantly admitted although he's quick, he was nothing compared to the NFL guys he worked with.

Speaking of Federer, he is probably top 3, definitely top 5, in all time clay court greats. Too bad he's vying for clay titles at the same time as the best clay courter of all time. Likewise, Roddick is arguably one of the top 3 or even 2 best grass court players of the past 10 years despite zero Wimbledons.

borg number one
04-19-2011, 05:28 PM
I think Federer is perhaps in the top 10 of greatest players ever on clay, but I think that one could plausibly put him outside the top 10 also. There are many ahead of him on that surface in my opinion. Guys like Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander, Vilas, Rosewall, Laver, and many others are at least in Federer's league on clay in terms of accomplishments first and foremost. As for the current crop, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are among the best movers around, save for Ferrer, but I would like to note that when comparing tennis players to NFL players, such as cornerbacks, there is the stamina issue. NFL players are have more muscle mass and are built for short bursts of speed. Yet, many of them could not handle running the way Djokovic or Nadal do over the course of five sets. There's no place to hide on a tennis court when you are tired either. No substitutions, no teammates. So, yes, many tailbacks, etc. are quicker than say Nadal, but Nadal also has phenomenal skill, eye/hand coordination, stamina, etc. Two very difficult sports, with different skill sets.

mcr619619
04-19-2011, 06:42 PM
Fed, as i say, is top 7/8/9 Clay courter, but not the top 3 or even in the top 5...
what im saying is,

Nadal CCGOAT no doubt
FED is a top 8 CCer and GOAT...IMO

being a GOAT and a great CCer and beaten by a player in almost all occasion in clay, denies the GOAT 3 RG titles, that's a big factor in being CCGOAT..

im no fan of Nadal, in fact, i don't like him because he beaten Fed in like 5 GS final, im just impressed how Nadal dominates the clay..though he's boring for me...XD

35ft6
04-20-2011, 08:19 AM
I think Federer is perhaps in the top 10 of greatest players ever on clay, but I think that one could plausibly put him outside the top 10 also. There are many ahead of him on that surface in my opinion. Guys like Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander, Vilas, Rosewall, Laver, and many others are at least in Federer's league on clay in terms of accomplishments first and foremost.Yeah, but if they were around in the time of Nadal, they would have done very little. I hear ya, though, in terms of accomplishments, they have more French Opens. But I can't help but think that mostly Fed loses in the big clay matches, or have in the past 10 years, to a guy who's virtually unbeatable on dirt.As for the current crop, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are among the best movers around, save for Ferrer, but I would like to note that when comparing tennis players to NFL players, such as cornerbacks, there is the stamina issue. NFL players are have more muscle mass and are built for short bursts of speed.Their bodies would have adapted if they grew up playing tennis. When people talk about Borg, they very often cite his speed and athleticism as the attributes that would have allowed him to transcend eras. The way he had to move on clay back in the 70's and early 80's is very different from how players have to move today, but I'm guessing most Borg fans assume he would have easily adjusted to the pace.
Yet, many of them could not handle running the way Djokovic or Nadal do over the course of five sets. There's no place to hide on a tennis court when you are tired either. No substitutions, no teammates. So, yes, many tailbacks, etc. are quicker than say Nadal, but Nadal also has phenomenal skill, eye/hand coordination, stamina, etc. Two very difficult sports, with different skill sets.NBA, in the opinion of some, is even more crazy on the body than pro tennis, requires even more endurance. Yes, different skill sets. Of course, the top 10 year old in Florida would destroy Lebron James in a tennis match. I'm saying all else being equal, if they developed the necessary skills, superior athletes would elevate the pro game. It's already happened on the women's side with Venus and Serena. Venus even has some serious technical issues with her forehand and second serve, two very important shots, but has done quite well for herself.

35ft6
04-20-2011, 09:03 AM
Fed, as i say, is top 7/8/9 Clay courter, but not the top 3 or even in the top 5...Basically, how I would make my case is by starting off by saying that IMO clay court tennis is the best its ever been. Better movers, more powerful, technical hitting, all that stuff. And guys have to run so much more, with today's poly strings, guys can hit such severe angles, plus the top guys have such great drop shots, it's really amazing what a normal point on clay is like today. Next, that Federer is by far the second best clay courter of the past 7 years or so. Until Soderling last year, he had ONLY lost to Nadal at Roland Garros after Kuerten beat him in 2004. Federer has been runner up at Roland Garros 3 times to Nadal, two of those times taking a set. As we all know, he has won it once. Put that into perspective, Lendl got to the finals 5 times, winning it three times, once over a guy fresh out of the NCAA's. Weird, huh? Same for Wilander, 5 finals, 3 wins. Other multiple winners since the 80's: Courier, Bruguera, Kuerten, and Borg.

More Federer: 4 Hamburg titles on clay when it was a Masters Series event including a win over Nadal, 3 others over Gasquet, Coria, and Safin. Without spending an hour at the ATP site (trying to find a list of Fed's clay court titles on the web... don't see it...), he's also won Gstaad (2004), Munich (2003), Estoril (2008)... So in a Masters Series, 5 clay titles, two over Nadal the CCGOAT, and 7 runner ups, all but one to Nadal. The first to Felix Mantilla (3-4 versus Kuerten).

I know this is controversial, but I can't even throw players from the 70's and most of the 80's into the mix. Besides tennis, I'm a huge MMA fan. In fact, I'm a bigger MMA fan than tennis fan these days. I know Royce Gracie is an MMA legend, but if I talk about flat out best fighters ever, I can't put him anywhere in my top 10 list unless "historical significance" is going to be a HUGE factor in determining the 10. MMA has just gotten way better in the past 20 years.

Some guy named Max Decugis won the French Open 8 times between 1903 and 1914. Is he better than Borg and Kuerten? If you say "heck no" I'm right there with ya. Okay, so despite what I said about the 70's and 80's, I'll put Borg in my top 3, even though the way clay court tennis was played in his day often looked like two guys trying to cooperate and break a world record for longest rally. As for the other guys in my top 4: Nadal, Federer, and Kuerten. I'm undermining my own point by putting Borg in there and not Lendl and Wilander. Just think in terms of sheer tennis prowess, those are the 4 best. And despite only winning once, part of me wants to put Juan Carlos Ferrero way up there. He was absolutely nasty on clay.

borg number one
04-20-2011, 09:52 AM
There is also the question of technology, so the debate would have to factor that in as well. The racquets would give Borg a big power boost, as would the strings. If one played with wood frames and transitioned to graphite frames, the difference is significant. Then, there's the string. They are playing with gut, not poly. So, for Borg, in current conditions, the offense would be much easier, but the defense would be more difficult, since now your opponent has a much bigger weapon. The racquets have changed the dynamics significantly. Yet, guys like Borg was nothing like the average athlete of the time. Becker, for example, mentions that on clay, "I realized I would have absolutely no chance." Wilander had difficulty winning games versus Borg in 1982 on clay.

See Borg vs. Victor Pecci in the '79 final. Pecci had a big serve, was 6' 4", and took the net very often often. He reached #9. He beat Barazzutti, Solomon, Vilas and Connors before he took on Borg in the final here. Borg beat Vilas twice, Orantes, Pecci, Gerulaitis, and Lendl in FO finals. See some of Borg's passing shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCyYtZO_R9M (Thanks to Krosero)

(Thanks to Krosero)

DjokerIsTheBest
04-20-2011, 10:29 AM
Borg is still CCGOAT.

Gorecki
04-20-2011, 10:46 AM
as in : during Competitive matches Coaching Greatest Of All Time ?

35ft6
04-20-2011, 02:25 PM
There is also the question of technology, so the debate would have to factor that in as well.Yeah, this is legit, but in the end, I'm just going by what I see. Fed's racket is probably still very close to the Pro Staff classic that came out in 1983. But poly strings, yes, very big difference. I know this personally, I switched to Big Banger mains and noticed the difference immediately.

I'm sure the top players would have adjusted. The way Lendl played the French in the early 90's is very different from the points he was playing in the early 80's. But that's all hypothetical.

Going strictly by records, I'm just not a huge fan of that. Like Laver, one of his Grand Slams was when the tour was split in two, right? And both of his Slams, 3 of the 4 was tournaments was on grass. How many more Slams would Pete Sampras if 3 of the 4 slams were on grass? Tons. And if 3 of the 4 are on grass, it would stand to reason there were less clay court specialists, so maybe the French was "easier" to win. Like there weren't really grass specialists during Sampras' time, there just aren't enough grass tournaments to make that a viable profession.

TheTruth
04-21-2011, 10:55 AM
Wow. Thank you for the extremely complimentary post. That's something you rarely see around here.

This is pretty far from the topic of the thread, so I'll stop rambling. But I'm glad to encounter someone who is willing to change their mind about something. It's a very rare quality.

I'm not sure who you're a fan of. It doesn't matter. A well thought out post that is both objective and true is a rarity around here.

It's easy to get caught up in the tit-for-tat that goes on around here. I'm guilty of it too, at times (even against my better judgment).

When I read a post like yours I can only chastise myself for weakening in some moments. I look forward to reading more of your posts. Very thought provoking and I hope to learn from you.

NADAL_GOT_THIS
04-21-2011, 10:58 AM
Nadal is on the way to being THE CHANNEL GOAT, replacing Borg!1

Murrayfan31
04-21-2011, 11:01 AM
Borg is still CCGOAT.
Yep and always will be.

Bud
04-21-2011, 11:04 AM
Nice write-up on the ATP site. Thought about starting a thread but naaah.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/04/Other/FedEx-Reliability-Career-Clay-Court-Record.aspx

Rafa tops the clay court all-time rankings. Guga, Borg, Muster should know!

"In ATP history, since 1973, Nadal leads the FedEx Reliability Index for career clay-court matches with a 204-16 mark and 29 titles (.927 per cent). Borg is second overall with a 245-39 record and 30 titles (.863), followed by Ivan Lendl with a 329-75 record and 29 titles (.814)."

With his title in MC 11, Nadal now equals Borg at 30 clay court titles and will also equal him with 6 RG titles, if he wins in 2011.

That will make him the most successful CC player ever, as far as results go.

NADAL_GOT_THIS
04-21-2011, 11:12 AM
"In ATP history, since 1973, Nadal leads the FedEx Reliability Index for career clay-court matches with a 204-16 mark and 29 titles (.927 per cent). Borg is second overall with a 245-39 record and 30 titles (.863), followed by Ivan Lendl with a 329-75 record and 29 titles (.814)."

With his title in MC 11, Nadal now equals Borg at 30 clay court titles and will also equal him with 6 RG titles, if he wins in 2011.

That will make him the most successful CC player ever, as far as results go.

This is definitely my favorite year of Nadal's career!1

jackson vile
04-21-2011, 11:33 AM
"In ATP history, since 1973, Nadal leads the FedEx Reliability Index for career clay-court matches with a 204-16 mark and 29 titles (.927 per cent). Borg is second overall with a 245-39 record and 30 titles (.863), followed by Ivan Lendl with a 329-75 record and 29 titles (.814)."

With his title in MC 11, Nadal now equals Borg at 30 clay court titles and will also equal him with 6 RG titles, if he wins in 2011.

That will make him the most successful CC player ever, as far as results go.

That really puts things into perspective!

Mustard
04-21-2011, 12:05 PM
Nadal is now 210-16 on clay in his ATP Tour career, and has 30 clay-court titles.

Bud
04-21-2011, 12:39 PM
Nadal is now 210-16 on clay in his ATP Tour career, and has 30 clay-court titles.

If Rafa should happen to sweep the 2011 CC season.. he'd be 230/16 (93.5% lifetime win %) and would be only 38 matches short (246 total CC matches) of Borg's total matches played on clay (284).

jackson vile
04-21-2011, 03:32 PM
If Rafa should happen to sweep the 2011 CC season.. he'd be 230/16 (93.5% lifetime win %) and would be only 38 matches short (246 total CC matches) of Borg's total matches played on clay (284).

Don't be getting ahead of yourself there buddy...

borg number one
04-21-2011, 06:58 PM
Here are some interesting records involving Borg and Nadal:

(from Wiki)

Borg won more French Open singles titles (6) than any other male player in tennis history (MaxMax Decugis won 8 titles when only French players were allowed to compete).
Borg and Nadal won four consecutive French Open singles titles, the only players to do so, during the open era.

Borg (6-0), Nadal (5-0) and Gustavo Kuerten (3-0) are the only players in the Open Era to never lose a French Open final while appearing in at least 3 finals.

Borg won the French Open singles title without losing a set in 1978 and 1980, and he was the last man to do so until Nadal in 2008 and 2010. Nadal and Borg are the only players to win two Grand Slams without dropping a set.

Borg retired while on a winning streak of record 28 consecutive matches at the French Open. Later, Nadal surpassed this record by winning 29 consecutive matches in the first round of 2009 French Open.

NADAL_GOT_THIS
04-21-2011, 07:01 PM
It's cool how Nadal can get all the history ahead of Borg this year, so then next year he can like start from scratch with no pressure of records (although admittedly winning the 7th Roland Garros will be important)!1

borg number one
04-21-2011, 07:17 PM
Borg won his 6th French Open title just after he turned 25. He turned 25 on June 6, 1981. Rafael Nadal will turn 25 on June 3, 2011. So he hopes to match Borg's record of winning a 6th French Open title by 25. The 1981 French Open was Borg's 11 major title and it would be the last time he ever played the tournament.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 07:19 PM
Borg did it in a strong clay era.

NADAL_GOT_THIS
04-21-2011, 07:28 PM
I guess by giving Federer the GOAT tag (despite a laughably weak grass era) we have to give Nadal clay GOAT tag too since both are based on cold hard statistics!1

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 07:29 PM
I guess by giving Federer the GOAT tag (despite a laughably weak grass era) we have to give Nadal clay GOAT tag too since both are based on cold hard statistics!1

No, Federer is overall GOAT until Djoker overtakes him, Borg is clay GOAT. Check the data.

Bud
04-21-2011, 08:04 PM
Here are some interesting records involving Borg and Nadal:

(from Wiki)

More interesting parallels:

If Nadal were to win the FO / Wimbledon double, once again in 2011, he would...

Tie Borg for total number of channel slams (winning FO/Wimbledon back to back): 3
Tie Borg for total number of Grand Slam tournament wins: 11
Tie Borg for total number of FO wins: 6

And all right around the same age as Borg (24-25), when he did it

Will be an interesting summer :)

borg number one
04-21-2011, 08:12 PM
Yes it will be Bud. I think Nadal is the favorite to win both the French Open as well as Wimbledon, but it will be fascinating.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/SPORT/05/23/singles.wnners/art.nadal.afp.gi.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1981/0615_large.jpg

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/French+Open+Roland+Garros+2008+FSTFT2_352nl.jpg

NADAL_GOT_THIS
04-21-2011, 08:15 PM
No, Federer is overall GOAT until Djoker overtakes him, Borg is clay GOAT. Check the data.

But 6 of Federer's 16 are on grass against the weakest grass field ever according to data. Sampras at least had to beat Rafter/Agassi/Goran/Becker!1

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 08:16 PM
But 6 of Federer's 16 are on grass against the weakest grass field ever according to data. Sampras at least had to beat Rafter/Agassi/Goran/Becker!1

True dat, but Fed also has 9 HC slams. Pretty strong era for HC.

NADAL_GOT_THIS
04-21-2011, 08:18 PM
True dat, but Fed also has 9 HC slams. Pretty strong era for HC.

Yep deep hardcourt field, seems to get deeper every year!1

Bud
04-21-2011, 09:37 PM
Yes it will be Bud. I think Nadal is the favorite to win both the French Open as well as Wimbledon, but it will be fascinating.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/SPORT/05/23/singles.wnners/art.nadal.afp.gi.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1981/0615_large.jpg

http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/French+Open+Roland+Garros+2008+FSTFT2_352nl.jpg

The bottom pic is beyond awesome :)

MichaelNadal
04-21-2011, 10:26 PM
Yeah, Borg is like hmmmm...

35ft6
04-21-2011, 10:37 PM
Borg did it in a strong clay era.For sure.

http://youtu.be/aZZMuXBr_Hk
http://youtu.be/U5TDGbbLXUQ

So why do you consider the 70's a strong era for clay?

Second video is from 1982 and I'm pretty sure Wilander is using a graphite racket.

namelessone
04-21-2011, 11:22 PM
http://www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/French+Open+Roland+Garros+2008+FSTFT2_352nl.jpg

I bet you Bjorn is thinking "man the spin I could get with that baby" :)

Bjorn imparted great spin with his wood racket with a small sweet spot, imagine what he could do with Rafa's tech. :shock:

TennisFan3
04-21-2011, 11:38 PM
I bet you Bjorn is thinking "man the spin I could get with that baby" :)

Bjorn imparted great spin with his wood racket with a small sweet spot, imagine what he could do with Rafa's tech. :shock:

Borg would have probably obliterated today's field with the new technology. Plus he was a beast, if there ever was one. Most likely he wouldn't have lost a clay match in this decade..

jackson vile
04-22-2011, 09:01 AM
Borg would have probably obliterated today's field with the new technology. Plus he was a beast, if there ever was one. Most likely he wouldn't have lost a clay match in this decade..



Ah, very very good points. I look at Borg as a combination of Federer and Nadal, he was indeed the ultimate warrior. Guy did not care to play AO, and then had some strange problems with McEnroe.

If he would have been playing AO and not had the problems with John, then there would be no question.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 09:15 AM
^^Very true. Borg is somewhat of a combination of Federer and Nadal, but I would say that he is truly unique overall.

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/_photos/2006-05-25-borg-med.jpg

McEnroe matched up well with Borg, but even then their overall record is 7-7 on grass courts, indoor, and hard courts only. In modern conditions, especially with the slowing of the courts, I think there would be a significant advantage for Borg (just look at the changes since 1980 and compare them). Meanwhile, Borg was far above him on clay. Look just at 1980 and 1981 (Borg's last two years of competition on the full tour). Borg won three majors ('80 FO, '81 FO, and '80 W) and so did McEnroe ('80 US, '81 W, and '81 US). Borg won both Masters Cup tourneys in Jan. 80 and Jan. 81 indoors, beating McEnroe in those two tournaments and going 5-0 versus Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe. Here's Borg in 1982 versus McEnroe when he was still contemplating a return. Borg beat Lendl and McEnroe to take the AKAI event in Australia (indoors) and had reportedly been training quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY

DjokerIsTheBest
04-22-2011, 09:22 AM
^^Very true. Borg is somewhat of a combination of Federer and Nadal, but I would say that he is truly unique overall.

http://images.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/_photos/2006-05-25-borg-med.jpg

McEnroe matched up well with Borg, but even then their overall record is 7-7 on grass courts, indoor, and hard courts only. In modern conditions, especially with the slowing of the courts, I think there would be a significant advantage for Borg (just look at the changes since 1980 and compare them). Meanwhile, Borg was far above him on clay. Look just at 1980 and 1981 (Borg's last two years of competition on the full tour). Borg won three majors ('80 FO, '81 FO, and '80 W) and so did McEnroe ('80 US, '81 W, and '81 US). Borg won both Masters Cup tourneys in Jan. 80 and Jan. 81 indoors, beating McEnroe in those two tournaments and going 5-0 versus Lendl, Connors, and McEnroe. Here's Borg in 1982 versus McEnroe when he was still contemplating a return. Borg beat Lendl and McEnroe to take the AKAI event in Australia (indoors) and had reportedly been training quite well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kger-33YtiY

Wow after watching that, it's clear that if Borg played in his prime today, Rafa would have zero FO titles.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 09:28 AM
Wow after watching that, it's clear that if Borg played in his prime today, Rafa would have zero FO titles.

Well, that's tough to say. It would have been great matches between them, equalized for technology of course.

MagneticCurls
04-22-2011, 09:29 AM
Well, that's tough to say. It would have been great matches between them, equalized for technology of course.

If you watch borg his on those videos, it's not that far from now. And that was with terrible rackets and strings. With today's stuff he would easily quash Rafa on clay.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 09:41 AM
If you watch borg his on those videos, it's not that far from now. And that was with terrible rackets and strings. With today's stuff he would easily quash Rafa on clay.

The "offense" would be easier for Borg, but the "defense" is tougher since players also have better racquets/strings. The thing about it is that Borg's defensive skills are through the roof (quickness, speed, anticipation, stamina, consistency, etc.). So, like Nadal, many of his strengths go hand in hand with what the present conditions reward. It's complicated, but for one thing, I think Borg would have been even tougher at Wimbledon if they used the courts of today back then. Basically, I don't think anyone would quash Nadal on clay and I don't think anyone would quash Borg on clay either. These all time greats on clay (or other surfaces as well) like Borg, Nadal, or even someone like Ivan Lendl are just too tough for any player to completely dominate.

MagneticCurls
04-22-2011, 09:50 AM
The "offense" would be easier for Borg, but the "defense" is tougher since players also have better racquets/strings. The thing about is that Borg's defensive skills are through the roof (quickness, speed, anticipation, stamina, consistency, etc.). So, like Nadal, many of his strengths go hand in hand with what the present conditions reward. It's complicated, but for one thing, I think Borg would have been even tougher at Wimbledon if they used the courts of today back then. Basically, I don't think anyone would quash Nadal on clay and I don't think anyone would quash Borg on clay either. These all time greats on clay like Borg, Nadal, or even someone like Ivan Lendl are just too tough for any player to completely dominate.

But didn't Borg have a much deeper clay field? Would we even be talking about Rafa so much if today's clay field had any competence at all? I mean all he's really had to do was beat Federer with whom he has a huge matchup advantage against.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 10:06 AM
But didn't Borg have a much deeper clay field? Would we even be talking about Rafa so much if today's clay field had any competence at all? I mean all he's really had to do was beat Federer with whom he has a huge matchup advantage against.

Besides Federer, players like Ferrero, Hewitt, Ferrer, and Djokovic have been quite good. It's debatable, was the clay field deeper in the Borg era or the Nadal era? Back in the late 1970's-1981, you tended to have many clay court specialists (Clerc, Higueras, Orantes are some examples), while also having grass court specialists (Amaya, Amritraj, Teacher, Tanner). These players excelled on their favorite surfaces while also struggling quite a bit on therr weakest surfaces. Now the surfaces are much more homogenized, so players don't have to change their playing style very much as they go from surface to surface.

Back then, on a yearly basis, there was a group of players who would have a lot of trouble at the clay events, given their playing style, strengths, and weaknesses. At the same time, there was a group of players on a yearly basis that would have lots of trouble on fast courts (ESPECIALLY the slick, fast courts at the AELTC). Borg did face some great clay courters such as Orantes (won the US Open on rubico, great on red clay), Vilas (won the US Open on rubico and reached two FO finals, and won the '77 FO, had the clay court win streak before Nadal), A. Panatta, Jose Luis Clerc, and Ivan Lendl, but I'd say Nadal has also faced some tough clay competition. For one thing, I think that one could argue that today's field is especially deep in terms of baseline play (the predominant playing style). Due to this, it can't be easy to win the way Nadal is winning on clay.

So, I would say that Nadal is not in a "easy time" for clay court wins, but at the same time, past eras have also been similarly tough or perhaps even tougher in terms of "depth at the top" especially (meaning say the very best five clay courters in the world at a given time). The top guys aren't going to lose in the early rounds, so basically we need to study the top flight competition of each player in the late stages of tournaments especially. The going tends to get tough for even players like Nadal and Borg when they reach the QF or perhaps the R16, not the first few rounds.

MichaelNadal
04-22-2011, 10:26 AM
Well, that's tough to say. It would have been great matches between them, equalized for technology of course.

Something we'd all like to see for sure :)

TheTruth
04-22-2011, 02:47 PM
Besides Federer, players like Ferrero, Hewitt, Ferrer, and Djokovic have been quite good. It's debatable, was the clay field deeper in the Borg era or the Nadal era? Back in the late 1970's-1981, you tended to have many clay court specialists (Clerc, Higueras, Orantes are some examples), while also having grass court specialists (Amaya, Amritraj, Teacher, Tanner). These players excelled on their favorite surfaces while also struggling quite a bit on therr weakest surfaces. Now the surfaces are much more homogenized, so players don't have to change their playing style very much as they go from surface to surface.

Back then, on a yearly basis, there was a group of players who would have a lot of trouble at the clay events, given their playing style, strengths, and weaknesses. At the same time, there was a group of players on a yearly basis that would have lots of trouble on fast courts (ESPECIALLY the slick, fast courts at the AELTC). Borg did face some great clay courters such as Orantes (won the US Open on rubico, great on red clay), Vilas (won the US Open on rubico and reached two FO finals, and won the '77 FO, had the clay court win streak before Nadal), A. Panatta, Jose Luis Clerc, and Ivan Lendl, but I'd say Nadal has also faced some tough clay competition. For one thing, I think that one could argue that today's field is especially deep in terms of baseline play (the predominant playing style). Due to this, it can't be easy to win the way Nadal is winning on clay.

So, I would say that Nadal is not in a "easy time" for clay court wins, but at the same time, past eras have also been similarly tough or perhaps even tougher in terms of "depth at the top" especially (meaning say the very best five clay courters in the world at a given time). The top guys aren't going to lose in the early rounds, so basically we need to study the top flight competition of each player in the late stages of tournaments especially. The going tends to get tough for even players like Nadal and Borg when they reach the QF or perhaps the R16, not the first few rounds.

Great stuff. It's nice to hear about the past greats from someone who's obviously experienced it and can be objective. You should (if you don't) have a tennis blog. Very nice writing style.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 03:24 PM
Great stuff. It's nice to hear about the past greats from someone who's obviously experienced it and can be objective. You should (if you don't) have a tennis blog. Very nice writing style.

Oh, thank you very much, I appreciate that. I must say though, there are other posters on here like Hoodjem, PC1, Krosero, Urban, Timnz, Kiki, Rabbit, and Datacipher, and so many more that are also very experienced watchers of the Game and and also very good posters. Many of those guys have been watching tennis longer than I have. For example, I just missed seeing Laver still on tour. Yet, I've read and watched a lot of material on him. More importantly, those posters above and many others are good listeners. I try though.

I have played tennis since about 1977 seriously and I've watched tennis closely since then. I've also read and watched a whole lot of tennis about past eras as well. More importantly, I had good tennis teachers, so I do love the Sport. After my parents and family, it was my first love, lol..I started playing tennis with a Jack Kramer in the juniors and had the best first coach you could have. He played with Kramer and company and he gave me my first racquet, this one, strung with VS gut.

http://www.rachetedetenis.ro/wp-content/gallery/wilson-jack-kramer-autograph/IMGP5639.jpg


Plus, I have a Dad that did everything for me. He made sure I was prepared, had the equipment, clothes, lessons, and he took me to ALL the tournaments, driving me around while being a professor. He also frequently watched me practice, was always a second coach, made me run miles, etc...lol. So, that's why I do have some perspective on the Sport. When you've watched great players go through all the stages, it's fascinating. Excuse the long post, but thanks again. I enjoy your posts as well.

35ft6
04-22-2011, 03:29 PM
At random, I chose 1977 as a starting point. Here are some of Borg's losses starting that year up to 1981:

1977
Raymond Moore... 6 and 4 on carpet
Sandy Mayer... 3 sets on carpet
Jeff Borowiak... 1 and 2 on carpet
Brian Gottfried... 1 and 1 on hard
Dick Stockton... retired in the 3rd set on clay
Sherwood Stewart... 1 and 6 on hard
Connors... 3 sets on carpet

1978
Roscoe Tanner... 4 and 6 on carpet.
Newcombe... retired while down 0-6, 0-1 on carpet
Tom Gullikson... 2 and 4 on carpet
Flat out clowned the field at the French this year
Connors... three sets on hard
Andrew Pattison... 3 sets on carpet
McEnroe... 3 and 4 on hard
Peter Fleming... 5 and 5 on hard

1979
Bruce Manson... 3 sets on hard
McEnroe... 3 sets on carpet
John Alexander... 3 sets on carpet
McEnroe... 4 sets on carpet
Eliot Teltscher... retired while up on clay
At the French, went 4 sets against 3 opponents including all time clay great Tom Gullikson
Roscoe Tanner... lost in 4 sets on hard

1980
Vilas... 3 sets on clay
Lendl... retired while down in the second set on hard
Lendl... lost in 5 on hard
Bill Scanlon... lost in 3 on carpet
Gene Mayer... 0 and 3 on carpet

1981
Rolf Gehring... 6 and 5 on carpet
Mac... 6 and 4 on carpet
Victor Pecci... 3 sets on clay, including a first round bagel loss, not sure if Nadal has ever been bageled on clay. Maybe against Fed?
Mac... 4 sets on grass
Mac... 4 sets on hard
Tim Gullikson... 3 and 1 on carpet

Why did Borg retire so often?

TheTruth
04-22-2011, 03:44 PM
Oh, thank you very much, I appreciate that. I must say though, there are other posters on here like Hoodjem, PC1, Krosero, Urban, Timnz, Rabbit, and Datacipher, and so many more that are also very experienced watchers of the Game and and also very good posters. Many of those guys have been watching tennis longer than I have. For example, I just missed seeing Laver still on tour. Yet, I've read and watched a lot of material on him. More importantly, those posters and many others are good listeners to other posters. I try. I have played tennis since about 1977 seriously and I've watched tennis closely since then. I've also read and watched a whole lot of tennis about past eras as well. More importantly, I had good tennis teachers, so I do love the Sport.

After my parents and family, it was my first love, lol..I started played with a Jack Kramer in juniors and had the best first coach you could have. He played with Kramer and company and he gave me my first racquet, this one, strung with VS gut. Plus, I have a Dad that did everything for me. He made sure I was prepared, had the equipment, clothes, lessons, and he took me to ALL the tournaments, driving me around while being a professor. He also frequently watched me practice, was always a second coach, made me run miles, etc...lol. So, that's why I do have some perspective on the Sport. When you've watched great player go through all the stages, it's fascinating. Excuse the long post, but thanks again. I enjoy your posts as well.

No problem. I love hearing knowledgeable posters schooling those of us who are not as tennis savvy. I've actually learned a lot from many of the posters on this board. That's why I stick around.

I've seen many of these posters names, but not enough to identify their posting styles. I will have to pay more attention in the future. When I think Borg, I think of you and Legend of Borg, for analyses on Bjorn.

I had barely started watching tennis when Borg played. I guess it was at the tail end of his career. But, what I did see I thoroughly enjoyed.

I read a lot on the past greats too, but not as much as I should. I'm guilty of not visually enjoying the old matches, because the graphics are so horrible. I may have to remedy that, because just knowing one era makes one ignorant of the history.

I was very involved during Sampras/Agassi, and now Federer/Nadal, but when I see posts like yours about Borg it makes me want to revisit that era with renewed vision.

Don't apologize for the long post, your love for tennis definitely came through. Plus, it's nice to hear about more than just Nadal and Federer, much credit goes to those who came before them.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 03:48 PM
Borg has the best overall winning percentage of all players. He is 608-127 (82.72%). If you do the math, with a reduced schedule of Borg from say 26-29 or 30, the numbers actually hold up really well. Besides a heavy schedule, he also played a lot of unofficial big money events and exos. See these other unofficial matches and official ones. Note the totals and all the matches played.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_Borg_career_statistics

He also has the best percentage at the majors of any player at 141-16 (89.8%). That's better than any male player ever. (He won 11/27 majors he ever played).

So, he was playing more than either Federer and Nadal basically on a yearly basis until he was 25, plus he was playing many unofficial matches, all at a feverish clip. So the primary reason for most of the retirements was probably overplay and slight injury, but I'm sure some were perhaps strategic as well (overplay or perhaps a big money unofficial tournament who knows?). It was a different time back then. The Tour was going through tremendous growth and Borg was actually the first guy to regularly get million dollar contracts (he raised the bar for all players to follow). He was also the Sport's biggest star, propelling the Sport's growth in the Golden Era and getting followed like crazy by fans, media, as he became a huge star. He and Connors in particular made a lot of money at big unofficial events too. Even the unofficial events could be very competitive. Imagine facing Jimmy Connors in a exo, with a couple of hundred thousand on the line (late 1970's money. Borg was worth about $160 million or so in 1983 when he retired. He lived in Monte Carlo and owned an island. That's a lot of money, given inflation). That's on top of a heavy official schedule. Borg won 500 times by the time he was 23. Nadal is just now winning 500 wins, for example. So, he won at a stunning clip and played a heavy schedule. Look at his totals even by 25. As for his losses, many of those guys were dangerous on a given day, so even the greats have losses, especially with heavy schedule, and some "strategic" retirements too "for sure". It's a very valid question though.

TheTruth
04-22-2011, 03:55 PM
As tennis fans we're extremely blessed.

We have been able to witness the next Borg and the next Sampras.

I wonder if years from now, or in how many years, we'll be witnessing the next Nadal and Federer.

Tennis is truly a circular sport. Records are made. Records are broken. Fans really don't get a lot of bragging time, it seems.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 04:04 PM
Well said The Truth, I think that's exactly right. We have to keep in mind how many great players tennis to be had. It's not "automatic" for any one player in my opinion. See some interesting Borg videos and others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huaeDCsM9fU (Bjorn Borg Heritage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg (FH comparison)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgBqNZnMCLY&feature=related (Wimbledon History, Bjorn Borg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qxu1XYuhQ (on Federer winning RG)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDEI3oEkhc (on Nadal before the '08 W)

Bud
04-22-2011, 04:16 PM
Borg has the best overall winning percentage of all players. He is 608-127 (82.72%). If you do the math, with a reduced schedule of Borg from say 26-29 or 30, the numbers actually hold up really well.

Nadal is on the cusp of besting Borg's career winning percentage with only 3-4 more wins (and no losses). He should bypass Borg with the Barcelona title and two wins in Madrid :)

borg number one
04-22-2011, 04:22 PM
Nadal is on the cusp of besting Borg's career winning percentage with only 3-4 more wins (and no losses). He should bypass Borg with the Barcelona title and two wins in Madrid :)

Ok, good luck to him. He's likely to win it. I just hope he paces himself just right.

Mustard
04-22-2011, 04:30 PM
Nadal has a career winning percentage of 82.62, with his win-loss record being 499-105.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 04:47 PM
Cool. So, Nadal has 603 total matches. Then, we'll have to revisit Nadal's percentage after another 132 matches, as Borg has 735 total matches, including 13 losses included from his failed attempt to play on the tour, with little preparation by the way and a wood racquet (but that's another topic). It's a great achievement though for Nadal to have that 82.75% number. Through 1981, Borg was a little over 25 years of age (about 25 yrs 6 months at the end of 1981) so Nadal is nearing that same age now. They are both at 82.7% now. That's another similarity between Nadal and Borg!

Mustard
04-22-2011, 05:01 PM
Nadal has played 604 matches on the ATP Tour so far.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 05:06 PM
Nadal has played 603 matches on the ATP Tour so far.

My mistake, edited earlier post, so that's 132 matches to go before Nadal is at 735. He could quite possibly maintain at least 82%+ for a while.

The-Champ
04-22-2011, 05:43 PM
Borg is a hero for every swedish tennis fan like me, but to say he would just crush nadal on clay had he played today is quite laughable. I bet even the most staunch critics of nadal do not believe that.

Bud
04-22-2011, 08:29 PM
Nadal already has a career winning percentage of 82.75, with his win-loss record being 499-104.

Officially, Nadal's record is currently 499/105 (how sure are you he's only had 104 losses as opposed to 105?)

That is 82.62% :)

My mistake, edited earlier post, so that's 132 matches to go before Nadal is at 735. He could quite possibly maintain at least 82%+ for a while.

He should hit that by early to mid 2013 at the ripe age of 26

Forehand Avenger
04-22-2011, 08:43 PM
Cool. So, Nadal has 603 total matches. Then, we'll have to revisit Nadal's percentage after another 132 matches, as Borg has 735 total matches, including 13 losses included from his failed attempt to play on the tour, with little preparation by the way and a wood racquet (but that's another topic). It's a great achievement though for Nadal to have that 82.75% number. Through 1981, Borg was a little over 25 years of age (about 25 yrs 6 months at the end of 1981) so Nadal is nearing that same age now. They are both at 82.7% now. That's another similarity between Nadal and Borg!
Thank you, borg number one. Your posts are always excellent.

You simply cannot say that Nadal is better than Borg or vice-versa in my opinion. It is pointless to pitch greats of different eras against each other. Both of them are the greatest of their respective eras and that's all there is to it.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-22-2011, 09:09 PM
Nadal's numbers will drop over time since even in his peak years he routinely masses 10 or more losses. In the end his numbers will be substantially behind Borg's.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 09:24 PM
Nadal's numbers will drop over time since even in his peak years he routinely masses 10 or more losses. In the end his numbers will be substantially behind Borg's.

Perhaps, yet I think he could stay above that number. We'll see how his career plays out. How long will he play? What will his schedule look like? Those are some primary unknowns at this time. I'll be interested to compare their numbers when Nadal has played about a 100 more matches. In the end though, their numbers look very comparable. Another statistic is that at the majors, Borg has a 89.81% winning percentage at the majors. That's the best winning percentage at the majors for any player during the Open Era.

borg number one
04-22-2011, 09:27 PM
Thank you, borg number one. Your posts are always excellent.

You simply cannot say that Nadal is better than Borg or vice-versa in my opinion. It is pointless to pitch greats of different eras against each other. Both of them are the greatest of their respective eras and that's all there is to it.

I agree that they are both great in their right. It's an interesting discussion or can be, but often it is pointless, I agree with that. Thanks very much.

TheTruth
04-23-2011, 12:52 AM
Well said The Truth, I think that's exactly right. We have to keep in mind how many great players tennis to be had. It's not "automatic" for any one player in my opinion. See some interesting Borg videos and others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huaeDCsM9fU (Bjorn Borg Heritage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31IYa7VsZYg (FH comparison)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgBqNZnMCLY&feature=related (Wimbledon History, Bjorn Borg)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qxu1XYuhQ (on Federer winning RG)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcDEI3oEkhc (on Nadal before the '08 W)

Thank you,

These were great. That first one is total pandemonium. Talk about icon status!

But you know what's really great? His attitude regarding the next generation. You can see the sincerity and lack of intimidation. He seems secure enough in himself to know that no matter how good these guys are, it really has nothing to do with what he accomplished.

In not one of those videos did he bring up his own exploits, or achievements. He speaks as if he's a regular commentator or a fan. If one didn't know you would have no idea the kind of impact he's had on the game itself. That's pure class.

Not to mention how many times a microphone is stuck in his face asking him all of these things. Those videos gave me a newfound respect for Borg. They make me want to read up on him and find out more about this enigmatic character. Hopefully, you'll be here to answer some of the questions I might have.

TheTruth
04-23-2011, 01:00 AM
Thank you, borg number one. Your posts are always excellent.

You simply cannot say that Nadal is better than Borg or vice-versa in my opinion. It is pointless to pitch greats of different eras against each other. Both of them are the greatest of their respective eras and that's all there is to it.

That's a pretty excellent post yourself, Forehand Avenger! You simply cannot ascertain who is the greatest of anything. There are too many variables, and no constants. I don't believe in GOATS and the whole notion of superiority. I think that's for people who are trying to live vicariously through the lives of others.

Sure, some guys are better, but does it really matter? And why? That's what I would be asking myself.

Blinkism
04-23-2011, 02:32 AM
That's a pretty excellent post yourself, Forehand Avenger! You simply cannot ascertain who is the greatest of anything. There are too many variables, and no constants. I don't believe in GOATS and the whole notion of superiority. I think that's for people who are trying to live vicariously through the lives of others.

Sure, some guys are better, but does it really matter? And why? That's what I would be asking myself.

Because we watch a competitive sport. A profession which revolves entirely on two people (or four people, in doubles) pitted against each other to see who, on that day, is the better player. And ofcourse, to varying degrees, we all live vicariously through the players we watch and the sport... that's why we watch it, that's how it entertains us. Naturally, we'd argue about who's better than who and who is the best to ever play our sport.. it's bound to happen amongst fans of any sport on a forum.

Thankfully, we watch tennis where, although GOAT discussions will never be resolved because, like you say; there are too many variables - at least we're not arguing team sports where a GOAT wouldn't apply across the board when you have positions like goaltenders, defencemen, forwards, etc, etc and have had major rule changes in the sport and have different leagues around the world.. I mean, since the early 70's we've have one international league for tennis (ATP) that's remained pretty conservative on any major rule changes and the most important championships of tennis (Slams, Davis Cup, YEC) have remained the same and that means we only have a single player to compare to a single player by similar standards.

Better than comparing, for example, in hockey, a goaltender playing in the 1960's NHL to a defenceman playing in the 90's Swedish Hockey League and asking "who is better?":lol: Makes a Borg to Nadal comparison seem a lot simpler to discuss, in that context, I'd think.

Hitman
04-23-2011, 02:46 AM
Because we watch a competitive sport. A profession which revolves entirely on two people (or four people, in doubles) pitted against each other to see who, on that day, is the better player. And ofcourse, to varying degrees, we all live vicariously through the players we watch and the sport... that's why we watch it, that's how it entertains us. Naturally, we'd argue about who's better than who and who is the best to ever play our sport.. it's bound to happen amongst fans of any sport on a forum.

Thankfully, we watch tennis where, although GOAT discussions will never be resolved because, like you say; there are too many variables - at least we're not arguing team sports where a GOAT wouldn't apply across the board when you have positions like goaltenders, defencemen, forwards, etc, etc and have had major rule changes in the sport and have different leagues around the world.. I mean, since the early 70's we've have one international league for tennis (ATP) that's remained pretty conservative on any major rule changes and the most important championships of tennis (Slams, Davis Cup, YEC) have remained the same and that means we only have a single player to compare to a single player by similar standards.

Better than comparing, for example, in hockey, a goaltender playing in the 1960's NHL to a defenceman playing in the 90's Swedish Hockey League and asking "who is better?":lol: Makes a Borg to Nadal comparison seem a lot simpler to discuss, in that context, I'd think.

Yep.... And it is almost like saying "I'm the greatest!" And yet there is only one man who has been universally known, acknowledged and accepted for saying that and getting away with it. And he wasn't a tennis player.

Mustard
04-23-2011, 04:17 AM
Officially, Nadal's record is currently 499/105 (how sure are you he's only had 104 losses as opposed to 105?)

That is 82.62% :)

My mistake, you're right. Nadal had 15 losses in 2007, not 14.

Nadal's win-loss records by year are:

2002: 1-1
2003: 14-11
2004: 30-17
2005: 79-10
2006: 59-12
2007: 70-15
2008: 82-11
2009: 66-14
2010: 71-10
2011: 27-4 (after the Barcelona QF win over Monfils)

Cassius Clay
04-23-2011, 06:03 AM
Nadal's numbers will drop over time since even in his peak years he routinely masses 10 or more losses. In the end his numbers will be substantially behind Borg's.

Nadal will reach his peak at 26 or 27.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-23-2011, 06:47 AM
My mistake, you're right. Nadal had 15 losses in 2007, not 14.

Nadal's win-loss records by year are:

2002: 1-1
2003: 14-11
2004: 30-17
2005: 79-10
2006: 59-12
2007: 70-15
2008: 82-11
2009: 66-14
2010: 71-10
2011: 27-4 (after the Barcelona QF win over Monfils)

Wow Nadal has never really had a thoroughly dominating season record wise like other greats of the past. Maybe 2011 is the year? Where did you find these numbers?

DjokerIsTheBest
04-23-2011, 06:47 AM
Nadal will reach his peak at 26 or 27.

He maybe has one more peak year left. He'll start losing a lot more when he's 27. Probably fall off much worse than Federer did.

Mustard
04-23-2011, 08:45 AM
Wow Nadal has never really had a thoroughly dominating season record wise like other greats of the past. Maybe 2011 is the year? Where did you find these numbers?

Worked them out myself :)

Forehand Avenger
04-23-2011, 10:33 AM
That's a pretty excellent post yourself, Forehand Avenger! You simply cannot ascertain who is the greatest of anything. There are too many variables, and no constants. I don't believe in GOATS and the whole notion of superiority. I think that's for people who are trying to live vicariously through the lives of others.

Sure, some guys are better, but does it really matter? And why? That's what I would be asking myself.
TheTruth, you are being way too kind, but it is an honor to hear that coming from one of the most intelligent and respectul posters around here, thank you.

Yes, GOAT is a stupid concept. You simply cannot project potential outcomes on matches between players of different eras. There is no way. The subtlest of details, which would surely escape any such forecasters, can have a tremendous impact on how player X would have fared against player Y given a substantial number of matches between both of them.

The mere mention of GOAT incites in me images of disrespectful punks completely unaware of tennis' former legends' actual achievements. Idiots have very short term memories, and ever shorter minds to even conceive that there might have been something going on in tennis before the last 20 years.

Forehand Avenger
04-23-2011, 10:37 AM
Because we watch a competitive sport. A profession which revolves entirely on two people (or four people, in doubles) pitted against each other to see who, on that day, is the better player. And ofcourse, to varying degrees, we all live vicariously through the players we watch and the sport... that's why we watch it, that's how it entertains us. Naturally, we'd argue about who's better than who and who is the best to ever play our sport.. it's bound to happen amongst fans of any sport on a forum.

Thankfully, we watch tennis where, although GOAT discussions will never be resolved because, like you say; there are too many variables - at least we're not arguing team sports where a GOAT wouldn't apply across the board when you have positions like goaltenders, defencemen, forwards, etc, etc and have had major rule changes in the sport and have different leagues around the world.. I mean, since the early 70's we've have one international league for tennis (ATP) that's remained pretty conservative on any major rule changes and the most important championships of tennis (Slams, Davis Cup, YEC) have remained the same and that means we only have a single player to compare to a single player by similar standards.

Better than comparing, for example, in hockey, a goaltender playing in the 1960's NHL to a defenceman playing in the 90's Swedish Hockey League and asking "who is better?":lol: Makes a Borg to Nadal comparison seem a lot simpler to discuss, in that context, I'd think.
Deceptively simpler. If you are stranded in an island and see a ship afar and decide to risk everything and start swimming towards it in the rough seas, are you close to complete success or are you close to complete disaster? The further you swim towards it you would seem to be closer to both, don't you agree? If you don't understand what I just said, you are not meant to.

35ft6
04-23-2011, 01:53 PM
Borg is a hero for every swedish tennis fan like me, but to say he would just crush nadal on clay had he played today is quite laughable. I bet even the most staunch critics of nadal do not believe that.In general, the "past was better or just as good" posters of TW are very much at odds with commentators, coaches, trainers, and players, both current and former, of the pro game. But if people didn't disagree, there would be no fun discussions here.

Mac declears Rafa the best he's ever seen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUMeHRQqtF0) This is a guy who is very familiar with Borg, but I'm sure his insights fail in comparison to people who were watching from their couches. And more random opinions:
Is Rafael Nadal the best clay-court player of all time?

"I think he still has a couple of more titles to go to equal Borg, but this was very impressive. He was impressive before, but Nadal is the player who has improved the most on clay courts since last year. This tournament he has been so dominant, and he just looks better and better. He's just improved everything -- he's stronger, he has a better backhand, he has a better slice and his body, he's still strong but he looks leaner, which will help him on the hard courts. Roger started the match very slow, and that means he wasn't going to have a chance. He looks tired on the court, so maybe he needs to take a little break." -- Andres Gomez, 1990 French Open champion.

"I think today was an amazing match, and yeah, we can say that now [that Nadal is the best clay-court player of all time]. He still has a way to go to do better than the record of Bjorn Borg, but I think he is very strong and he is playing very unbelievable tennis. He is playing with a confidence I haven't seen in a long time. Today was a very tough day for Roger. I wasn't surprised that Rafa won because I was expecting him to win more than ever, because he arrived to this final better than ever both physically and mentally. But the score was a little much." -- Conchita Martinez, 1994 Wimbledon champion.

"Yes, I've said that Nadal is the best clay-court player to ever play the game -- I reckon I've said that for a good year now. I said he was the greatest clay-courter I've ever seen before this tournament, and today only confirms it. It was incredible. I think that the modern rackets and modern strings make him the greatest. It's almost impossible to beat him the way he is physically, how fast he is and how determined he is. It's very tough because you never can really compare generations. But, heck, Borg with the wooden racket and Nadal with today's rackets, how can you beat him? So he's the greatest we've ever seen. That's not to say he's more talented than Borg or has better shots than Borg or better fitness or determination -- I don't think that's the case -- but because of the way he plays, no one can beat him. Roger came in the tournament not playing that well, so he went into the match and had to go for it, which I think he did and I give him credit for that. I think he [Rafa] can win Wimbledon. Ten years ago that game wouldn't win Wimbledon, but now it can because of the conditions, because of the strings and because of the rackets. It would be exciting." -- Pat Cash, 1987 Wimbledon champion.

"Well, I don't know if he's the best, because Borg won here six times, so Rafael has another two to go. But definitely he is right up there. I think the talented and the will and the strength he has is just the same no matter when you play. He's already won the four in a row like Borg, so I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be one of the favorites again next year unless he's injured or something. But I think his game and physical abilities are as sharp as he can get them to be. For him it's just the matter of staying there. Today, we were all a little bit disappointed because we were hoping for a little closer final, but Roger didn't play his best. But that's how it goes sometimes that the finals are not the best matches. But he'll [Federer] probably get his revenge on grass." -- Guy Forget, French Davis Cup captain.

.....

1) Rafael Nadal You just have to repeat his 108 victories from 110 matches on clay to appreciate this remarkable young Spaniard. What he puts into his life, he receives back a thousand fold. The absolute epitome of professionalism.

2) Steffi Graf Five victories from eight appearances in the French Open final across 11 years, a truly phenomenal athlete and player who brought a new dimension to the game. Christened Fraulein Forehand, her sliced backhand was just as considerable a weapon.

3) Bjorn Borg He not only played the game brilliantly, the best athlete many of us have ever seen, but spawned new levels of idolatry in this capital of chic. He simply drove the opposition to distraction. Like Evert, his ultra calm persona fitted the demands of clay perfectly. He wasn't bad on grass, either.

4) Chris Evert The American won this title seven times, re-defining the art of baseline durability and remarkable self-belief. She had the perfect temperament for clay, exemplifying patience and court craft.

5) Roger Federer Controversial perhaps, but as Nadal, his clay court nemesis has said, anyone who has won Hamburg four times, been to two French finals, three in Monte Carlo and two more in Rome, is a very good clay court player indeed. Would have won this title were it not for one rather amazing player.

TheTruth
04-23-2011, 05:01 PM
Because we watch a competitive sport. A profession which revolves entirely on two people (or four people, in doubles) pitted against each other to see who, on that day, is the better player. And ofcourse, to varying degrees, we all live vicariously through the players we watch and the sport... that's why we watch it, that's how it entertains us. Naturally, we'd argue about who's better than who and who is the best to ever play our sport.. it's bound to happen amongst fans of any sport on a forum.
Thankfully, we watch tennis where, although GOAT discussions will never be resolved because, like you say; there are too many variables - at least we're not arguing team sports where a GOAT wouldn't apply across the board when you have positions like goaltenders, defencemen, forwards, etc, etc and have had major rule changes in the sport and have different leagues around the world.. I mean, since the early 70's we've have one international league for tennis (ATP) that's remained pretty conservative on any major rule changes and the most important championships of tennis (Slams, Davis Cup, YEC) have remained the same and that means we only have a single player to compare to a single player by similar standards.

Better than comparing, for example, in hockey, a goaltender playing in the 1960's NHL to a defenceman playing in the 90's Swedish Hockey League and asking "who is better?":lol: Makes a Borg to Nadal comparison seem a lot simpler to discuss, in that context, I'd think.

I don't feel that way. I love competition, but I have no interest in who is the best, now, in the past, or in the future. I watch tennis to derive pleasure for myself. I pick my players based on my emotional response to them. Can they make me care?

I used to watch basketball before I started watching tennis. I loved Isaiah Thomas. At the time everyone was talking about Magic Johnson. That's cool, but Magic didn't appeal to me, so I didn't care if he was "better" in the eyes of many. He didn't evoke an emotional response from me. So, happy for him and his career, but...

As much as I like my individual favorite, I don't live vicariously through their achievements. I'm happy for them, that they're achieving their goals, but I hardly see how that gives me bragging rights.

I'm trying to get my son to understand this concept as he's always coming to me asking "who, or which is better?" Somehow he can't understand that I don't esteem one thing over another. IMO, things are different and both have their own attributes.

That's just the way I see it. The "everybody says..." mantra is the dumbest thing in the world to me. Always has been.

35ft6
04-23-2011, 05:19 PM
^ Dude, you've gotta stop taking sports so seriously. I'm sure when you cared about Isaiah Thomas, you simply wanted to see him win, you weren't living vicariously through him and his Pistons uniform. I know Chomsky is a huge critic of sports and the way it distracts us from more important matters and reinforces nationalism by teaching us from a very early age to affiliate ourselves unconditionally to a uniform/symbols/geographic location/etc, but to me, at its best, sports, when it's played with honor, is improvised theater at its best, and I know many grown men who only cry during sports moments because it so perfectly encapsulates, sometimes, the human struggle and within a framework that is pure meritocracy when regulated properly. The 30 for 30 documentary The 16th Man showed an extreme example of this in action, how Nelson Mandela tried to get the blacks and whites to slowly begin to unify by proposing that their rugby team was a symbol of their commonality, but less extreme examples will also do.

Life is rough, your son is going to encounter so many difficult decisions ahead, IMO, let him wonder about stuff. Not every thought has to involve a black or white consequence. We all love tennis, that's why we're here, and 99% of the conversations here are inconclusive, but there's a place in life for thinking simply for thinking's sake. It's fun to talk about who would win. None of this is serious stuff. It's a diversion. :) Every person goes through that annoying stage where they discover the concept of relativism and has to tell everybody "that's just like your opinion, man." Let him go through that annoying stage later in life rather than now...

Sheesh, I sound so preachy. Sorry about that.

TheTruth
04-23-2011, 06:00 PM
^ Dude, you've gotta stop taking sports so seriously. I'm sure when you cared about Isaiah Thomas, you simply wanted to see him win, you weren't living vicariously through him and his Pistons uniform. I know Chomsky is a huge critic of sports and the way it distracts us from more important matters and reinforces nationalism by teaching us from a very early age to affiliate ourselves unconditionally to a uniform/symbols/geographic location/etc, but to me, at its best, sports, when it's played with honor, is improvised theater at its best, and I know many grown men who only cry during sports moments because it so perfectly encapsulates, sometimes, the human struggle and within a framework that is pure meritocracy when regulated properly. The 30 for 30 documentary The 16th Man showed an extreme example of this in action, how Nelson Mandela tried to get the blacks and whites to slowly begin to unify by proposing that their rugby team was a symbol of their commonality, but less extreme examples will also do.

Life is rough, your son is going to encounter so many difficult decisions ahead, IMO, let him wonder about stuff. Not every thought has to involve a black or white consequence. We all love tennis, that's why we're here, and 99% of the conversations here are inconclusive, but there's a place in life for thinking simply for thinking's sake. It's fun to talk about who would win. None of this is serious stuff. It's a diversion. :) Every person goes through that annoying stage where they discover the concept of relativism and has to tell everybody "that's just like your opinion, man." Let him go through that annoying stage later in life rather than now...

Sheesh, I sound so preachy. Sorry about that.

I don't take sports so seriously. That's the point.

However, I do have a problem with group mentality thinking, which I am totally opposed to. I feel that type of mentality weakens individuals, rather than strengthens them. If he doesn't learn to analyze things for himself, rather than going along with a crowd/mob mentality he'll never discover who he is a person. I know, tribes, living in groups, and the way we're institutionalized into that kind of thinking. I never was that person so it isn't something that I admire.

I agree that it's fun to discuss the possibilities. The more facets of a discussion we see, the better. But trying to assign superiority in a matter of subjectivity is a foolish concept in my eyes.

The Truth is a woman, which may have something to do with my point of view regarding sports. I want to win, but I don't have to win. My enjoyment is in the participation, not in trophies, or accolades.

You're the umpteenth posters who thought I was a guy. I don't quite know what to make of that :).

I didn't mind the preachy part. I love seeing others express themselves intelligently, and within the context of their posting bring other knowledge to the table.

I appreciated your post.

TheTruth
04-23-2011, 06:03 PM
Deceptively simpler. If you are stranded in an island and see a ship afar and decide to risk everything and start swimming towards it in the rough seas, are you close to complete success or are you close to complete disaster? The further you swim towards it you would seem to be closer to both, don't you agree? If you don't understand what I just said, you are not meant to.

I love this post!

This is exactly how I view life. I do not believe in absolutes. There are way too many factors to consider.

Cassius Clay
04-24-2011, 05:29 AM
The Truth is a woman, which may have something to do with my point of view regarding sports. I want to win, but I don't have to win. My enjoyment is in the participation, not in trophies, or accolades.



I'm not surprised you are a woman. Don't get me wrong, I like your way of seeing things and enjoying sports, but we men love competition, we thrive on thrashing our rivals. We are proud of our accomplishments and sometimes brag about them. That's the way we are, and most women can't understand it.

We feel the urge of conquering and domination, and after that, we have to protect and keep our turf.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-24-2011, 05:31 AM
I'm not surprised you are a woman. Don't get me wrong, I like your way of seeing things and enjoying sports, but we men love competition, we thrive on thrashing our rivals. We are proud of our accomplishments and sometimes brag about them. That's the way we are, and most women can't understand it.

We feel the urge of conquering and domination, and after that, we have to protect and keep our turf.

I think you're referring to Neanderthal man.

Cassius Clay
04-24-2011, 05:39 AM
I think you're referring to Neanderthal man.

The human being hasn't changed much since that time. Now we have technology, medicines and more complex societies but we are pretty much the same impulse-driven animals.

mandy01
04-24-2011, 06:08 AM
The human being hasn't changed much since that time. Now we have technology, medicines and more complex societies but we are pretty much the same impulse-driven animals.You post somehow reminded me of Hobbes.:mrgreen:

The-Champ
04-24-2011, 08:00 AM
You post somehow reminded me of Hobbes.:mrgreen:

not at all. Hobbes talk about the human being, not about men per se.

mandy01
04-24-2011, 08:15 AM
not at all. Hobbes talk about the human being, not about men per se.I know that. But I can't help the fact that I was reminded of his theory.:sad:

Forehand Avenger
04-24-2011, 06:14 PM
I love this post!

This is exactly how I view life. I do not believe in absolutes. There are way too many factors to consider.
You are being very kind, TheTruth. I agree with you though.

Forehand Avenger
04-24-2011, 06:16 PM
I'm not surprised you are a woman. Don't get me wrong, I like your way of seeing things and enjoying sports, but we men love competition, we thrive on thrashing our rivals. We are proud of our accomplishments and sometimes brag about them. That's the way we are, and most women can't understand it.

We feel the urge of conquering and domination, and after that, we have to protect and keep our turf.
Yes, I am like that as well. So much so that people usually think I am a jerk when I'm playing against them (which could very well be true.) However, when looking at player A or B in a historical context I am much more dispassionate.

35ft6
04-24-2011, 06:42 PM
I don't take sports so seriously. That's the point.To not take it seriously would be to have a fun discussion about players of different eras. IMO.However, I do have a problem with group mentality thinking, which I am totally opposed to.Not sure if group thinking is a problem in and of itself. If the whole world agreed that no child should starve to death when we have so much food, I'd be down with that. The quality of the idea should matter more than how many people support or oppose it.I feel that type of mentality weakens individuals, rather than strengthens them. If he doesn't learn to analyze things for himself, rather than going along with a crowd/mob mentality he'll never discover who he is a person.I'm surprised by this claim since you seem to be discouraging people having an enjoyable discussion about players of different eras. It's almost like "too many factors, so why bother?" Because it's fun. And thinking strictly for thinking's sake shouldn't be discouraged. When I was thinking of minoring in philosophy, my dad said, and not in a confrontational way, "what's the point of that stuff?" It's the critical examination of life, it's understanding yourself, and putting fuzzy abstractions into sharp focus. And if you can develop that kind of mental agility, flexibility, strength, and endurance, it's there to be used whenever and wherever you need it. It's not pointless. A train of thought doesn't have to have practical applications or an undeniable verdict at the end to be worthwhile. I love talking about music, art, food, whatever... what would be the point of life if you avoided any topic that was difficult or "had too many factors?"I agree that it's fun to discuss the possibilities. The more facets of a discussion we see, the better. But trying to assign superiority in a matter of subjectivity is a foolish concept in my eyes.Why? When people ask you what restaurant or movie or music you would recommend, do you respond "it would be foolish for me to recommend one over another as it's all subjective?" It's only foolish if people start name calling and taking it personally, and that happens a lot here. But more than whether or not I agree with a person, what I care about is how a person arrived at that stance. I like people who have creative, logical, and compelling reasons for feeling the way they do.The Truth is a woman, which may have something to do with my point of view regarding sports.Based on the name and the posting style, I thought you were a 20 year old male with a chip on his shoulder. :) Seriously, I did. But in general, most message boards are 90% or more male so I assume a poster is male by default unless something indicates otherwise.I appreciated your post.Cool. I'm not trying to start an argument or attack you. I realize it's the internet, everything seems so serious. I used to add disclaimers and smiley faces galore to my posts so people didn't bug out, but I'm trying to cut down on that. Just giving you my candid responses. In general, message boards are 99% opinions and discussion of subjective matters, so I'm always amazed by when people come into a thread and post the way you do. It's not just you, there is a whole bunch of posters who go into threads just to post "what's the point of this?" Or "who cares!?" I skip most of the threads here, can't imagine going into one just to tell the participants of a topic that what they're doing is foolish and their topic has no merit. :)

nadalbestclass
04-24-2011, 06:42 PM
I'm not surprised you are a woman. Don't get me wrong, I like your way of seeing things and enjoying sports, but we men love competition, we thrive on thrashing our rivals. We are proud of our accomplishments and sometimes brag about them. That's the way we are, and most women can't understand it.

We feel the urge of conquering and domination, and after that, we have to protect and keep our turf.

I'm sorry this offends me big time. You are speaking as if women don't play sports... Women don't always have the physical endurance that men do. But competitive spirit is very much alive. Women don't give up everything to train and become athletes or dancers or musicians to enjoy the experience. They do it the same reason men do, to WIN, to be the best, and to write their names in history.

I have to disagree with Truth as well. Different people think differently about winning. I don't think it's a gender thing. Women can be just as competitive as men. Sometimes I think a bit much. Competition is a HUMAN instinct, not a male one. It's part of the survival instinct. I mean mommy polar bears will eat their cubs if need be, does it get any more brutal? LOL.

( I should prolly mention that I'm not a guy, nor am I a feminist)

35ft6
04-24-2011, 06:47 PM
I'm not surprised you are a woman. Don't get me wrong, I like your way of seeing things and enjoying sports, but we men love competition, we thrive on thrashing our rivals. We are proud of our accomplishments and sometimes brag about them. That's the way we are, and most women can't understand it.I'm not like this at all. I'm not competitive and I don't trash talk. I just enjoy hitting a tennis ball.

Cassius Clay
04-24-2011, 07:17 PM
I'm sorry this offends me big time. You are speaking as if women don't play sports... Women don't always have the physical endurance that men do. But competitive spirit is very much alive. Women don't give up everything to train and become athletes or dancers or musicians to enjoy the experience. They do it the same reason men do, to WIN, to be the best, and to write their names in history.

I have to disagree with Truth as well. Different people think differently about winning. I don't think it's a gender thing. Women can be just as competitive as men. Sometimes I think a bit much. Competition is a HUMAN instinct, not a male one. It's part of the survival instinct. I mean mommy polar bears will eat their cubs if need be, does it get any more brutal? LOL.

( I should prolly mention that I'm not a guy, nor am I a feminist)

I meant no offense. Of course women can play sports and be competitive, but in my experience (talking in general terms) they are not as competitive as men (there are some exceptions, of course). Women are sometimes afraid to tread on uncharted territory, they are not used to hunting and conquering. They can be hard-working, consistent, disciplined, thorough, gracious and sportsmanlike, but not as innovative, self-confident, aggressive, ruthless, cold-headed and competitive as men.

nadalbestclass
04-24-2011, 07:25 PM
I meant no offense. Of course women can play sports and be competitive, but in my experience (talking in general terms) they are not as competitive as men (there are some exceptions, of course). Women are sometimes afraid to tread on uncharted territory, they are not used to hunting and conquering. They can be hard-working, consistent, disciplined, thorough, gracious and sportsmanlike, but not as innovative, self-confident, aggressive, ruthless, cold-headed and competitive as men.

:shock: I suppose I can't blame you for thinking this way. You are after-all a man.

Cassius Clay
04-24-2011, 07:39 PM
:shock: I suppose I can't blame you for thinking this way. You are after-all a man.

:) I just think men and women are different. Women tend to play safe and not take chances whenever they are not sure about the outcome. They are more conservative. Men are more impetuous (which doesn't always pay off).

But again, there are exceptions to the rule.

TheTruth
04-24-2011, 08:01 PM
I'm not surprised you are a woman. Don't get me wrong, I like your way of seeing things and enjoying sports, but we men love competition, we thrive on thrashing our rivals. We are proud of our accomplishments and sometimes brag about them. That's the way we are, and most women can't understand it.

We feel the urge of conquering and domination, and after that, we have to protect and keep our turf.

I know. It's funny to me. As a woman I don't see myself living vicariously through sports figures. I was more of a bookworm than a jock. It takes a lot for me to :)make me sit up and take notice, but when I do, I really like them and everyone else pales in comparison.

Glad you're not surprised. That makes my day! :)

TheTruth
04-24-2011, 08:11 PM
To not take it seriously would be to have a fun discussion about players of different eras. IMO.Not sure if group thinking is a problem in and of itself. If the whole world agreed that no child should starve to death when we have so much food, I'd be down with that. The quality of the idea should matter more than how many people support or oppose it.I'm surprised by this claim since you seem to be discouraging people having an enjoyable discussion about players of different eras. It's almost like "too many factors, so why bother?" Because it's fun. And thinking strictly for thinking's sake shouldn't be discouraged. When I was thinking of minoring in philosophy, my dad said, and not in a confrontational way, "what's the point of that stuff?" It's the critical examination of life, it's understanding yourself, and putting fuzzy abstractions into sharp focus. And if you can develop that kind of mental agility, flexibility, strength, and endurance, it's there to be used whenever and wherever you need it. It's not pointless. A train of thought doesn't have to have practical applications or an undeniable verdict at the end to be worthwhile. I love talking about music, art, food, whatever... what would be the point of life if you avoided any topic that was difficult or "had too many factors?"Why? When people ask you what restaurant or movie or music you would recommend, do you respond "it would be foolish for me to recommend one over another as it's all subjective?" It's only foolish if people start name calling and taking it personally, and that happens a lot here. But more than whether or not I agree with a person, what I care about is how a person arrived at that stance. I like people who have creative, logical, and compelling reasons for feeling the way they do.Based on the name and the posting style, I thought you were a 20 year old male with a chip on his shoulder. :) Seriously, I did. But in general, most message boards are 90% or more male so I assume a poster is male by default unless something indicates otherwise.Cool. I'm not trying to start an argument or attack you. I realize it's the internet, everything seems so serious. I used to add disclaimers and smiley faces galore to my posts so people didn't bug out, but I'm trying to cut down on that. Just giving you my candid responses. In general, message boards are 99% opinions and discussion of subjective matters, so I'm always amazed by when people come into a thread and post the way you do. It's not just you, there is a whole bunch of posters who go into threads just to post "what's the point of this?" Or "who cares!?" I skip most of the threads here, can't imagine going into one just to tell the participants of a topic that what they're doing is foolish and their topic has no merit. :)

Really? The tone of your post doesn't sound that way to me.

On the subject of being candid, it sounds like you're ascribing how you feel to me, and since you do it this way, that's the way it should be done.

All I can tell you is I post what I think and feel, although, to be honest, that's the one thing that does blow me away. When a poster responds by telling you what and how you should think. There are a lot of opinions I don't agree with on this board, some opinions I think are downright stupid, but I respect people's right to post them. And for all of the time I have been on this board I have never told a poster that the way they see it would be better if they sifted it through my mental filter.

I stopped reading after a point, because I really didn't/don't see your point all. I just find your tone offputting.

TheTruth
04-24-2011, 08:17 PM
I'm sorry this offends me big time. You are speaking as if women don't play sports... Women don't always have the physical endurance that men do. But competitive spirit is very much alive. Women don't give up everything to train and become athletes or dancers or musicians to enjoy the experience. They do it the same reason men do, to WIN, to be the best, and to write their names in history.

I have to disagree with Truth as well. Different people think differently about winning. I don't think it's a gender thing. Women can be just as competitive as men. Sometimes I think a bit much. Competition is a HUMAN instinct, not a male one. It's part of the survival instinct. I mean mommy polar bears will eat their cubs if need be, does it get any more brutal? LOL.

( I should prolly mention that I'm not a guy, nor am I a feminist)

I don't think competition is a gender thing either. I was speaking only for myself. I'm not a competitive person. There's women in the WNBA, tennis, Olympics, etc. I happen to enjoy watching others compete while sitting in the comfort of my home, or in a seat at a stadium. But nothing makes me want to go out there and sweat.

Anyway, there's no way I would assign such a blanket statement to an entire gender. Whatever I say applies to me and not a group.

nadalbestclass
04-24-2011, 09:02 PM
I don't think competition is a gender thing either. I was speaking only for myself. I'm not a competitive person. There's women in the WNBA, tennis, Olympics, etc. I happen to enjoy watching others compete while sitting in the comfort of my home, or in a seat at a stadium. But nothing makes me want to go out there and sweat.

Anyway, there's no way I would assign such a blanket statement to an entire gender. Whatever I say applies to me and not a group.

Gotcha! :)

10char

35ft6
04-24-2011, 09:10 PM
Really? The tone of your post doesn't sound that way to me.Yeah, fair enough. I was going to lighten it up but I thought it would be nebulous then what's the point?On the subject of being candid, it sounds like you're ascribing how you feel to me, and since you do it this way, that's the way it should be done.

All I can tell you is I post what I think and feel, although, to be honest, that's the one thing that does blow me away. When a poster responds by telling you what and how you should think.I was talking about Nadal and other clay court players until I noticed your posts about what's worth discussing and what's not worth discussing. I think you even used the word "foolish."
I stopped reading after a point, because I really didn't/don't see your point all. I just find your tone offputting.Fair enough. I find your posts annoying, too, so I shouldn't be surprised the feeling is mutual. Peace out.

TheTruth
04-24-2011, 09:20 PM
Yeah, fair enough. I was going to lighten it up but I thought it would be nebulous then what's the point?I was talking about Nadal and other clay court players until I noticed your posts about what's worth discussing and what's not worth discussing. I think you even used the word "foolish." Fair enough. I find your posts annoying, too, so I shouldn't be surprised the feeling is mutual. Peace out.

Which is exactly why I responded the way that I did. I thought what you were doing was painfully obvious.

There have been a ton of GOAT threads on this board since I came, and as a matter of fact there are many who have said the same or similar things over the years without a tome from you.

So, I wasn't shocked at your "hidden motive." Just thought it should be addressed.

Peace to you as well.