PDA

View Full Version : is dominance on 1 surface the sign of the GOAT?


Tammo
10-22-2012, 02:27 PM
Nadal has dominated clay ever since 05' 8 MC's 6 Rome and 7 FO's. He has the same number of FO's that Fed has Wimbledons and did it 5 years behind. Fed cannot and never will dominate grass liek Nadal does clay, I this the sign of the true untarnished GOAT?

The-Champ
10-22-2012, 02:29 PM
Definitely not. A GOAT should dominate every surface and destroy all his rivals anytime, anywhere. Nadal didn't do that.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 02:32 PM
No.

10chars

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 02:40 PM
A surface GOAT, yes. But seeing that he's done well on the other surfaces as well, he's definitely a GOAT contender.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 02:57 PM
Definitely not. A GOAT should dominate every surface and destroy all his rivals anytime, anywhere. Nadal didn't do that.

Neither did Fed though

The-Champ
10-22-2012, 03:03 PM
Neither did Fed though

That's what I was trying to say :D

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 03:03 PM
Neither did Fed though

Federer bageled Nadal on Clay and Djokovic on Hards :)

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 03:12 PM
Federer bageled Nadal on Clay and Djokovic on Hards :)

Nadal bageled Fed in GS final!

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 03:14 PM
Nadal bageled Fed in GS final!

Fed bageled Nadal too. 2006 Wimbledon.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 03:16 PM
Fed bageled Nadal too. 2006 Wimbledon.

In Nadal's 4th or 5th grass court tournament EVER though.. Just to put some things into perspective here

sureshs
10-22-2012, 03:17 PM
Definitely not. A GOAT should dominate every surface and destroy all his rivals anytime, anywhere. Nadal didn't do that.

And neither did Fed.

Cup8489
10-22-2012, 03:17 PM
Neither did Fed though

Fed is closer than Nadal, though. And closer than Borg, Sampras. And Laver, for that matter.

None of them have the records, or tied for the records, for wins at multiple majors. Borg was the leader at FO, and had 5 straight Wimbledon. Sampras was leading at Wimbledon with 7 total, and tied for USO wins (5). Laver, none of the above (his claim is mainly his ability to win two CYGS). Federer has tied for the most titles at AO, USO, Wimbledon.. AND made 5 finals at the FO, losing 4 to Rafa and winning the one against not-rafa.

So, no, Federer doesn't dominate everywhere. but he's the closest.

The Bawss
10-22-2012, 03:17 PM
In Nadal's 4th or 5th grass court tournament EVER though.. Just to put some things into perspective here

Boo hoo, Fed had mono. We can both play this game if you want.

Cup8489
10-22-2012, 03:18 PM
In Nadal's 4th or 5th grass court tournament EVER though.. Just to put some things into perspective here

So? How many tournaments does he need to have? Thats no excuse.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 03:19 PM
Fed is closer than Nadal, though. And closer than Borg, Sampras. And Laver, for that matter.


This is not true. Laver won multiple times on all surfaces that were available then, and he doesnt have a losing record to any of his main rivals, two major difference from Federer. Laver comes MUCH closer to fitting that title than Federer ever has or ever will. It is funny how you pass off winning 2 Grand Slams as if it is nothing, when Federer and Nadal arent good enough to even do it once, heck neither were good enough to even win 2 Career Slams, but Laver simply does 2 Calendar Slams, LOL! As for not having the most slams anywhere, how many slams would Federer or Nadal have if they were barred from Slam tennis from 24 to 29, especialy Federer. The fact he has multiple and double digit slams everywhere despite that is nothing short of remarkable, Federer and even Nadal sure as hell wouldnt.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 03:19 PM
So? How many tournaments does he need to have? Thats no excuse.

So being a greenhorn rookie with almost NO grass experience is no excuse vs a defending 3-4 time champ whatever it was?

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 03:21 PM
Boo hoo, Fed had mono. We can both play this game if you want.

We can play it.. And stop talking as if Fed had some severe form of mono.. If he had it, it was very MILD. A severe form of mono you can't even get out of bed, much less make finals of Grand Slam tournaments.


What about all the other years Nadal beat Fed at the French? Are we gonna use the mono excuse there too?

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 03:22 PM
Nadal has dominated clay ever since 05' 8 MC's 6 Rome and 7 FO's. He has the same number of FO's that Fed has Wimbledons and did it 5 years behind. Fed cannot and never will dominate grass liek Nadal does clay, I this the sign of the true untarnished GOAT?

Nadal would have to win atleast 1 more Wimbledon and atleast 1 more hard court slam to be a GOAT candidate, along with tieing or breaking Federer's slam record. For those who consider Rod Laver the GOAT he would need a Calendar Slam however, atleast one, if not two.

Gonzo_style
10-22-2012, 03:23 PM
Fed bageled Nadal too. 2006 Wimbledon.

To be clear, i think if you lose set 6:0 it's not big deal, i remember Djokovic lost set vs Gasquet 6:0, but he won that final! Federer bageled Djokovic this year, but Djokovic have a set point in that match! Federer btw won 4 games in GS final.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 03:23 PM
Nadal would have to win atleast 1 more Wimbledon and atleast 1 more hard court slam to be a GOAT candidate, along with tieing or breaking Federer's slam record. For those who consider Rod Laver the GOAT he would need a Calendar Slam however, atleast one, if not two.

Thats do-able though.. Nadal should have enough in the tank to reasonably win another Wimbledon, 2-3 More French Open titles, and an AO at the very least.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 03:27 PM
So being a greenhorn rookie with almost NO grass experience is no excuse vs a defending 3-4 time champ whatever it was?

Not really, especially when you consider a certain greenhorn rookie beat a 7 time Wimbledon champion.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 03:30 PM
Not really, especially when you consider a certain greenhorn rookie beat a 7 time Wimbledon champion.

Fed was at his peak in 2006 though.. Pete was a shell of his former grass self in 2001

So A greenhorn rookie in his 4th-5th grass tournament ever vs. a PEAK Federer is the same a young Federer-vs. OLD Sampras?

jokinla
10-22-2012, 03:30 PM
It's the sign of the clay Goat, Fed is the GOAT, silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

Cup8489
10-22-2012, 03:41 PM
This is not true. Laver won multiple times on all surfaces that were available then, and he doesnt have a losing record to any of his main rivals, two major difference from Federer. Laver comes MUCH closer to fitting that title than Federer ever has or ever will. It is funny how you pass off winning 2 Grand Slams as if it is nothing, when Federer and Nadal arent good enough to even do it once, heck neither were good enough to even win 2 Career Slams, but Laver simply does 2 Calendar Slams, LOL! As for not having the most slams anywhere, how many slams would Federer or Nadal have if they were barred from Slam tennis from 24 to 29, especialy Federer. The fact he has multiple and double digit slams everywhere despite that is nothing short of remarkable, Federer and even Nadal sure as hell wouldnt.

Ah, I never passed it off. I was just saying, Laver is not as close as either Fed or Nadal to holding the most titles at any of the majors. That was the point I was making.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 03:41 PM
Fed was at his peak in 2006 though.. Pete was a shell of his former grass self in 2001

So A greenhorn rookie in his 4th-5th grass tournament ever vs. a PEAK Federer is the same a young Federer-vs. OLD Sampras?

How did we know Sampras was a shell of his former grass self? What's your proof? He was a 4 time defending champion at that point. He always performed badly at RG, and turned it on at Wimbledon even in his prime.

In context, we're talking about a 6-0 set. At the end of the day it's one set, it means very little, so making excuses as to why Nadal got bageled is a bit strange.

Cup8489
10-22-2012, 03:44 PM
Thats do-able though.. Nadal should have enough in the tank to reasonably win another Wimbledon, 2-3 More French Open titles, and an AO at the very least.

Riiight. Nadal hasn't won a non-clay slam for 3 years.. but yes, he can definitely win AT LEAST 1 more AO, another Wimbledon, 3 FO's.. and he would still be at 16

You're horribly biased.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 03:56 PM
How did we know Sampras was a shell of his former grass self? What's your proof? He was a 4 time defending champion at that point. He always performed badly at RG, and turned it on at Wimbledon even in his prime.

In context, we're talking about a 6-0 set. At the end of the day it's one set, it means very little, so making excuses as to why Nadal got bageled is a bit strange.

Proof? Umm He needed to go 5 sets to beat a no-namer in Barry Cowens in one of the earlier rounds.. Then the year after he loses to Bastl. And.. All you had to do was see his play at wimbledon in 2001 and 2002 and compare it to his other years at wimbledon in the 90s..

How much proof do you need?

hoodjem
10-22-2012, 04:13 PM
So? How many tournaments does he need to have? Thats no excuse.GOAT has 200 tournaments.

Netspirit
10-22-2012, 04:18 PM
Laver had 2 good years in the period when big players mostly ignored the AO and 3 out of 4 majors were played on grass. He was the best of his decade, but I do not think those 2 good years add much to career comparisons.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 04:25 PM
This is not true. Laver won multiple times on all surfaces that were available then, and he doesnt have a losing record to any of his main rivals, two major difference from Federer. Laver comes MUCH closer to fitting that title than Federer ever has or ever will. It is funny how you pass off winning 2 Grand Slams as if it is nothing, when Federer and Nadal arent good enough to even do it once, heck neither were good enough to even win 2 Career Slams, but Laver simply does 2 Calendar Slams, LOL! As for not having the most slams anywhere, how many slams would Federer or Nadal have if they were barred from Slam tennis from 24 to 29, especialy Federer. The fact he has multiple and double digit slams everywhere despite that is nothing short of remarkable, Federer and even Nadal sure as hell wouldnt.

And yet he doesn't have the most pro-major-equivalents ever.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 04:56 PM
Proof? Umm He needed to go 5 sets to beat a no-namer in Barry Cowens in one of the earlier rounds.. Then the year after he loses to Bastl. And.. All you had to do was see his play at wimbledon in 2001 and 2002 and compare it to his other years at wimbledon in the 90s..

How much proof do you need?

As I said, in context we're talking about one measly 6-0 set. You made a pretty lame excuse about how it was Nadal's 4th or 5th grass tournament. A bagel set is a bagel set. There are no legitimate excuses as to why they happen when you're as good as Nadal was, even in 2006. Just as there are no excuses for Federer to be bageled at RG.

90's Clay
10-22-2012, 05:00 PM
As I said, in context we're talking about one measly 6-0 set. You made a pretty lame excuse about how it was Nadal's 4th or 5th grass tournament. A bagel set is a bagel set. There are no legitimate excuses as to why they happen when you're as good as Nadal was, even in 2006. Just as there are no excuses for Federer to be bageled at RG.

Nadal was not that great outside of clay in 2006.. He was still learning the ropes, maturing, and had yet to be what he would later become.

There is an excuse for Fed to get bageled a set in the French.. He was playing Nadal. The hands down best to ever play on the dirt at his clay peak in 2008.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 05:02 PM
Nadal was not that great outside of clay in 2006.. He was still learning the ropes, maturing, and had yet to be what he would later become.

There is an excuse for Fed to get bageled a set in the French.. He was playing Nadal. The hands down best to ever play on the dirt at his clay peak in 2008.

You don't get to Grand Slam finals without being good on the surface.

Either way, a 2-time Grand Slam champion (he had won 2 Slams by then) being not-good on another surface is no excuse.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 05:03 PM
Nadal was not that great outside of clay in 2006.. He was still learning the ropes, maturing, and had yet to be what he would later become.

There is an excuse for Fed to get bageled a set in the French.. He was playing Nadal. The hands down best to ever play on the dirt at his clay peak in 2008.

Ok, great so you've found excuses for both of them. Not really that big of a deal. My work is done.

NadalAgassi
10-22-2012, 05:51 PM
As I said, in context we're talking about one measly 6-0 set. You made a pretty lame excuse about how it was Nadal's 4th or 5th grass tournament. A bagel set is a bagel set. There are no legitimate excuses as to why they happen when you're as good as Nadal was, even in 2006. Just as there are no excuses for Federer to be bageled at RG.

If the matches are competitive a bagel set in a best of 5 doesnt factor much into an argument about the whole of the player, be that Federer or Nadal. Even the bagel set which led to a whooping of a match (2008 FO final) which the 2006 Wimbledon final was not in the end, doesnt factor much into how I perceive Federer on clay, we all knew he was much inferior to Nadal on the whole on clay even had that match been reasonably competitive like their other 5 finals there, and my ranking of Federer on clay would still be the 8-13 range all time like it is now. Likewise why would it factor into how Nadal is perceived on grass, he is the 2nd best grass courter of his era by far, but probably not top 10 all time on the surface yet, had the first set of that match been 7-5 that perception would be exactly the same. Seriously arent we all reaching a bit too much here.

timnz
10-22-2012, 05:55 PM
Nadal needs to dominate (say win at least 4 titles) in a few more of the top 5 titles (Slams + WTF). At the moment he has only dominated at the French Open. In contrast Federer has dominated in 4 out of 5 of the top 5 titles.

Not saying that Nadal can't do it....but he needs to show greater dominance across the top 5 titles if he is to be considered for the very summit of tennis history.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 06:34 PM
If the matches are competitive a bagel set in a best of 5 doesnt factor much into an argument about the whole of the player, be that Federer or Nadal. Even the bagel set which led to a whooping of a match (2008 FO final) which the 2006 Wimbledon final was not in the end, doesnt factor much into how I perceive Federer on clay, we all knew he was much inferior to Nadal on the whole on clay even had that match been reasonably competitive like their other 5 finals there, and my ranking of Federer on clay would still be the 8-13 range all time like it is now. Likewise why would it factor into how Nadal is perceived on grass, he is the 2nd best grass courter of his era by far, but probably not top 10 all time on the surface yet, had the first set of that match been 7-5 that perception would be exactly the same. Seriously arent we all reaching a bit too much here.

In regards to the bolded part, yes we are. That was my point of my last 2 or 3 posts. You're telling the wrong person this.

tusharlovesrafa
10-22-2012, 06:42 PM
It's the sign of the clay Goat, Fed is the GOAT, silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

So technically Nadal is 1/3rd GOAT and Fed is 2/3 GOAT as clay constitutes 1/3 of playing surface over the year.(clay+hard+grass=3) :grin:

Cup8489
10-22-2012, 08:17 PM
Nadal was not that great outside of clay in 2006.. He was still learning the ropes, maturing, and had yet to be what he would later become.

There is an excuse for Fed to get bageled a set in the French.. He was playing Nadal. The hands down best to ever play on the dirt at his clay peak in 2008.

LOL what is this crap?!

Federer getting a bagel from Nadal is perfectly expected, since Nadal was at his peak on his best surface.. but Nadal getting a bagel from Federer is given an excuse because.. well, it's Federer at his peak on his best surface?!

So what do you say about the Bagel Rafa ate last year at WTF? When Fed is NOT peak on his best surface? What's the logic there, 90's tard?

LOL

Cup8489
10-22-2012, 08:20 PM
If the matches are competitive a bagel set in a best of 5 doesnt factor much into an argument about the whole of the player, be that Federer or Nadal. Even the bagel set which led to a whooping of a match (2008 FO final) which the 2006 Wimbledon final was not in the end, doesnt factor much into how I perceive Federer on clay, we all knew he was much inferior to Nadal on the whole on clay even had that match been reasonably competitive like their other 5 finals there, and my ranking of Federer on clay would still be the 8-13 range all time like it is now. Likewise why would it factor into how Nadal is perceived on grass, he is the 2nd best grass courter of his era by far, but probably not top 10 all time on the surface yet, had the first set of that match been 7-5 that perception would be exactly the same. Seriously arent we all reaching a bit too much here.

Other than 'much weaker than Nadal on clay', I agree (Federer has beaten Rafa as much as Djokovic on clay, and been within points of beating him multiple other matches as well, i think he deserves some credit there).

but 90's Clay is the one making excuses for Nadal, saying that the score wasn't fair to him since he was a baby on grass or whatever (didn't he win Wimbledon juniors?)

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 08:21 PM
LOL what is this crap?!

Federer getting a bagel from Nadal is perfectly expected, since Nadal was at his peak on his best surface.. but Nadal getting a bagel from Federer is given an excuse because.. well, it's Federer at his peak on his best surface?!

So what do you say about the Bagel Rafa ate last year at WTF? When Fed is NOT peak on his best surface? What's the logic there, 90's tard?

LOL

I shouldn't have but I LOLed at that.

Towser83
10-22-2012, 08:26 PM
As I said, in context we're talking about one measly 6-0 set. You made a pretty lame excuse about how it was Nadal's 4th or 5th grass tournament. A bagel set is a bagel set. There are no legitimate excuses as to why they happen when you're as good as Nadal was, even in 2006. Just as there are no excuses for Federer to be bageled at RG.

Yeah I mean, Federer bageled Nadal on clay in 2007 and hardcourt in 2011. Bagels happen. He did it to Djokovic in cinci this year. It's not like they really prove much anyway, other than one player was really on form and the other was out of sorts. This can happen regardless of experience. Unless Nadal was a clay greenhorn in 2007 and a HC greenhorn in 2011 and Nole was this year.

How did this subject even come about anyway? :lol:

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 08:31 PM
Other than 'much weaker than Nadal on clay', I agree (Federer has beaten Rafa as much as Djokovic on clay, and been within points of beating him multiple other matches as well, i think he deserves some credit there).

but 90's Clay is the one making excuses for Nadal, saying that the score wasn't fair to him since he was a baby on grass or whatever (didn't he win Wimbledon juniors?)

No, I don't believe Rafa ever did.

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 08:32 PM
Yeah I mean, Federer bageled Nadal on clay in 2007 and hardcourt in 2011. Bagels happen. He did it to Djokovic in cinci this year. It's not like they really prove much anyway, other than one player was really on form and the other was out of sorts. This can happen regardless of experience. Unless Nadal was a clay greenhorn in 2007 and a HC greenhorn in 2011 and Nole was this year.

How did this subject even come about anyway? :lol:

Guilty as charged.

Steve0904
10-22-2012, 08:48 PM
Yeah I mean, Federer bageled Nadal on clay in 2007 and hardcourt in 2011. Bagels happen. He did it to Djokovic in cinci this year. It's not like they really prove much anyway, other than one player was really on form and the other was out of sorts. This can happen regardless of experience. Unless Nadal was a clay greenhorn in 2007 and a HC greenhorn in 2011 and Nole was this year.

How did this subject even come about anyway? :lol:

It started out kind of funny, and then 90's clay turned it stupid. PoB said that Federer bageled Nadal on clay and Djokovic on HC, then Gonzo style trumped it by saying Nadal bageled Fed at RG, then I said that Fed bageled Nadal at Wimbledon. And then 90's clay starts making excuses as to why Nadal got bageled saying he was a "greenhorn" rookie at the time, while offering no such "excuses" for Federer. I said Nadal didn't really have an excuse considering a certain "greenhorn" rookie defeated a 7 time Wimbledon champion, and that's how we got onto Sampras. So that's the rundown.

Towser83
10-22-2012, 08:49 PM
Guilty as charged.

i should make a bad joke about you being a prisoner of birth as a result of being guilty :lol:

Prisoner of Birth
10-22-2012, 09:02 PM
i should make a bad joke about you being a prisoner of birth as a result of being guilty :lol:

You just did ;-)

merlinpinpin
10-22-2012, 10:45 PM
So being a greenhorn rookie with almost NO grass experience is no excuse vs a defending 3-4 time champ whatever it was?

That's pretty funny. Care to speak about that Federer-Sampras match again? Cause the positions were reversed and I'm pretty sure your take on this will be *quite* different. :)

Zarfot Z
10-22-2012, 10:48 PM
No, OP.

Nadal is GOAT on clay.

Being GOAT on one surface does not translate to GOAT

Cup8489
10-23-2012, 12:23 PM
POB got banned... but not Nsk? what..?

Gonzo_style
10-23-2012, 12:34 PM
POB got banned... but not Nsk? what..?

It was bound to happen, his arrogance became unbearable! Guy said that if Djok wins 5 AO titles, Federer would still be the better AO player! :)

Steve0904
10-23-2012, 12:43 PM
POB got banned... but not Nsk? what..?

Yeah, I don't get that one either.

Gonzo_style
10-23-2012, 12:52 PM
Yeah, I don't get that one either.

***/6:1 6:3 6:0/RAfA2005RG etc is a troll, yeah, but I didn't see that he offends other people and players, like PoB!

Cup8489
10-23-2012, 05:20 PM
***/6:1 6:3 6:0/RAfA2005RG etc is a troll, yeah, but I didn't see that he offends other people and players, like PoB!

He goes into everything talking about Nadal. and trolling I believe is against forum rules.

Steve0904
10-23-2012, 05:27 PM
***/6:1 6:3 6:0/RAfA2005RG etc is a troll, yeah, but I didn't see that he offends other people and players, like PoB!

Yeah, some of the stuff he wrote yesterday towards you was a bit offensive I'll give you that.

NadalAgassi
10-23-2012, 06:22 PM
6-1, 6-3, 6-0 is a troll but doesnt make personal attacks on other posters like Prisoner of Birth was frequently doing. Technically even seemingly going out his/her way to troll he isnt doing anything against the rules, he/she could just say they are stating their opinion as wildly pro Nadal as it might be.

pame
10-23-2012, 07:26 PM
This is not true. Laver won multiple times on all surfaces that were available then, and he doesnt have a losing record to any of his main rivals, two major difference from Federer. Laver comes MUCH closer to fitting that title than Federer ever has or ever will. It is funny how you pass off winning 2 Grand Slams as if it is nothing, when Federer and Nadal arent good enough to even do it once, heck neither were good enough to even win 2 Career Slams, but Laver simply does 2 Calendar Slams, LOL! As for not having the most slams anywhere, how many slams would Federer or Nadal have if they were barred from Slam tennis from 24 to 29, especialy Federer. The fact he has multiple and double digit slams everywhere despite that is nothing short of remarkable, Federer and even Nadal sure as hell wouldnt.

I'm once again bemused by the fact that apparently this "need to match" is required in only one direction: Fed has to match Laver's accomplishments, but apparently Laver doesn't have to match any of Fed's gazillion record accomplishments.

NadalAgassi
10-23-2012, 08:00 PM
I'm once again bemused by the fact that apparently this "need to match" is required in only one direction: Fed has to match Laver's accomplishments, but apparently Laver doesn't have to match any of Fed's gazillion record accomplishments.

Which ones would you be referring to that one could reasonably expect:

-Weeks at #1. There wasnt even a computer ranking back then so technically impossible. The only way to fairly compare recent players to players BEFORE the official computer rankings is years at the #1 player. In the Open Era the most are Sampras with 6 and Federer with 5. Laver had 7 straight years he was credited as being the Worlds #1 player from 1964-1970, so beats both in that regard.

-Most slam titles. Like I said ban Federer from playing slams from ages 24 to 29 and see how many he wins.

-Most Wimbledons. See above.

Mustard
10-23-2012, 09:05 PM
Ah, I never passed it off. I was just saying, Laver is not as close as either Fed or Nadal to holding the most titles at any of the majors. That was the point I was making.

Considering that Laver couldn't play at the mainstream majors after completing the 1962 Grand Slam until the open era began in April 1968, that would be rather impossible to do. Nevertheless, in the professional majors before the open era, Laver won 4 Wembley Pros, 3 US Pros, 1 French Pro and 1 Wimbledon Pro, which included winning all 4 of these tournaments in 1967.

Simply counting the number of mainstream majors just doesn't apply to pre-open era tennis, or even early in the open era. It wasn't until 1983 that there was the sort of orderly structure to the tour like there is today.

above bored
10-23-2012, 10:36 PM
This is not true. Laver won multiple times on all surfaces that were available then, and he doesnt have a losing record to any of his main rivals, two major difference from Federer. Laver comes MUCH closer to fitting that title than Federer ever has or ever will. It is funny how you pass off winning 2 Grand Slams as if it is nothing, when Federer and Nadal arent good enough to even do it once, heck neither were good enough to even win 2 Career Slams, but Laver simply does 2 Calendar Slams, LOL! As for not having the most slams anywhere, how many slams would Federer or Nadal have if they were barred from Slam tennis from 24 to 29, especialy Federer. The fact he has multiple and double digit slams everywhere despite that is nothing short of remarkable, Federer and even Nadal sure as hell wouldnt.
Don't people get tired of trumpeting these same old flawed Laver arguments?

The fact that you win 4 majors in one year does not make them worth more. They are still just 4 majors, just won in a year. It shows dominance in one year, but so does winning 3 and making the final in the 4th, plus bagging the first major of the new year.

Laver may not have been able to play at the majors for 5 years, however, he also won 6 of his majors when the best of his contemporaries, such as Gonzales, Hoad and Rosewall, were themselves not allowed to compete in them, which downgrades the value of his first Grandslam and the other majors he won prior to 1963.

Even early on after the arrival of the open era, Laver was effectively playing against amateurs, with a few exceptions, who had not yet developed their games to the level of the established professionals. So even with the second Grandslam there was a bit of a leg up.

Let us also not forget that the depth and pressures of the game today are far greater than they were back when Laver was playing.


Laver was great, but the quality of his achievements cannot compete with the quality of Federer's.

merlinpinpin
10-23-2012, 10:46 PM
Considering that Laver couldn't play at the mainstream majors after completing the 1962 Grand Slam until the open era began in April 1968, that would be rather impossible to do.

Actually, you and NadalAgassi are kind of distorting the truth. Not disputing the fact that Laver didn't play them during these years, but he *could* have done so, he just *chose* not to. (I'm not disputing his choice, btw, just saying that he wasn't a "victim" of this system as some like to portray him.)

And the fact remains that, even adding his Pro majors to his tally, he doesn't have as many as Federer has.

pame is totally right, btw. The focus seems to be on the fact that Federer absolutely needs to match and exceeds every single record out there, but the other players, past and present, don't. Cause if majors are the be-all and end-all, Laver having less than Federer (and Rosewall) should automatically disqualify him from any GOAT discussion according to your brand of logic.

Laver still has a very good case for GOAT, but so have Federer and a couple of other guys, and it's not as clear cut as "Federer can't beat them all, so no cigar".

Alchemy-Z
10-24-2012, 03:27 AM
at the end of the day every player dreams of winning the GRAND SLAM....so much so they have been re-wording Majors to Slams since the late 90's

Laver won 2 of these back to back and this was in a time when Slam Count wasn't something people were shooting for...it was just do the best you can every where you go.

no scheduling to do better at slams..warm up tourneys ... injury recovery weeks etc...

merlinpinpin
10-24-2012, 04:35 AM
at the end of the day every player dreams of winning the GRAND SLAM....so much so they have been re-wording Majors to Slams since the late 90's

Laver won 2 of these back to back and this was in a time when Slam Count wasn't something people were shooting for...it was just do the best you can every where you go.

no scheduling to do better at slams..warm up tourneys ... injury recovery weeks etc...

Are you sure about that? ;)

Gonzo_style
10-24-2012, 04:56 AM
at the end of the day every player dreams of winning the GRAND SLAM....so much so they have been re-wording Majors to Slams since the late 90's

Laver won 2 of these back to back and this was in a time when Slam Count wasn't something people were shooting for...it was just do the best you can every where you go.

no scheduling to do better at slams..warm up tourneys ... injury recovery weeks etc...

You can do it better, master!

Mustard
10-24-2012, 07:28 AM
Actually, you and NadalAgassi are kind of distorting the truth. Not disputing the fact that Laver didn't play them during these years, but he *could* have done so, he just *chose* not to. (I'm not disputing his choice, btw, just saying that he wasn't a "victim" of this system as some like to portray him.)

Laver turned professional knowing that he would be banned from the mainstream majors, yes. But if you are now going to just go "Oh, Laver won 11 majors, way behind Federer" then that's a clear distortion of the reality.

And the fact remains that, even adding his Pro majors to his tally, he doesn't have as many as Federer has.

Laver has 20 majors if we count his amateur, professional and open majors, as listed below:

1. 1960 Australian Championships
2. 1961 Wimbledon
3. 1962 Australian Championships
4. 1962 French Championships
5. 1962 Wimbledon
6. 1962 US Championships
7. 1964 Wembley Pro
8. 1964 US Pro
9. 1965 Wembley Pro
10. 1966 Wembley Pro
11. 1966 US Pro
12. 1967 French Pro
13. 1967 Wembley Pro
14. 1967 US Pro
15. 1967 Wimbledon Pro
16. 1968 Wimbledon
17. 1969 Australian Open
18. 1969 French Open
19. 1969 Wimbledon
20. 1969 US Open

Mustard
10-24-2012, 07:30 AM
Don't people get tired of trumpeting these same old flawed Laver arguments?

The fact that you win 4 majors in one year does not make them worth more. They are still just 4 majors, just won in a year. It shows dominance in one year, but so does winning 3 and making the final in the 4th, plus bagging the first major of the new year.

Laver may not have been able to play at the majors for 5 years, however, he also won 6 of his majors when the best of his contemporaries, such as Gonzales, Hoad and Rosewall, were themselves not allowed to compete in them, which downgrades the value of his first Grandslam and the other majors he won prior to 1963.

The realities of the pre-open era show that simply counting the number of mainstream majors is hugely flawed. The argument of "Federer - 17 majors, Laver - 11 majors, therefore Federer is better", is flawed.

Steve0904
10-24-2012, 07:37 AM
I realize Laver didn't have much of a chance to play on hard, but we can't just ignore the fact that 3 of the majors were on the same surface when Laver played as well.

TMF
10-24-2012, 08:05 AM
Fed detractors will go to any lengths to dismiss Federer when vast majority(even Laver) have claimed Roger is the goat. And some of you act like a GOAT has to be a perfect player as an attempt to dismiss Federer. A goat doesn't have to be perfect at everything. Michael Jordan, Graf or Gretzky arn't perfect players, but to their respective sport, they are perfect enough to be a goat by most of the fans. Federer is in the same category...he's the closest to perfect than any male tennis player.

To the OP: the answer is no. Dominance in 1 surface only means he's 1 dimensional, and Nadal only be a cc goat. To be a GOAT overall, a player has to be the most complete player(closest to perfect:)), most verstatile player of all, most consistent, and has the accomplishments to back up. Federer is rank right at the top.

-His 23 consecutive slam finals were all on 3 surfaces.
-He's the only tennis player to win at least 50 matches on all 4 slams,
-the only player win at least 10 titles on hc, clay, grass, and indoor in open era.
-the only male to made at least 5 slam finals on all 4 slams.

Roger is the king !
The benchmark is set. He's holding the torch. Until someone comes along and tie/break his records, the torch will be pass on to that future player.

TMF
10-24-2012, 08:15 AM
Laver turned professional knowing that he would be banned from the mainstream majors, yes. But if you are now going to just go "Oh, Laver won 11 majors, way behind Federer" then that's a clear distortion of the reality.


Laver's 6 of his 11 were from the amateur, the smaller and much weak field than the pro. So that alone say Laver's 11 isn't equal to a modern 11 slams.

Who cares if Laver didn't play those slam events when he was a pro since the amateur field was weak anyway. Even if he decided to be an amateur so he can compete, nobody knows how many he would win, and to predict how many he would win is taking away from the amateur players(ie Emerson) who actually played and won !

veroniquem
10-24-2012, 08:41 AM
Laver is the GOAT of pre-open era (that's when most of his career happened) and the very beginning of open. Fed is the GOAT of open era since the early 70s. That's it, argument settled. Open era and pre-open era are way too different to attempt comparing.

merlinpinpin
10-24-2012, 10:27 AM
Laver turned professional knowing that he would be banned from the mainstream majors, yes. But if you are now going to just go "Oh, Laver won 11 majors, way behind Federer" then that's a clear distortion of the reality.

Of course not. However, the Pro majors were closer to the format of the Masters, which many count as a major too. And this seems totally legit when you bundle "true" grand slam tournaments and Pro slams.

Laver has 20 majors if we count his amateur, professional and open majors, as listed below:

1. 1960 Australian Championships
2. 1961 Wimbledon
3. 1962 Australian Championships
4. 1962 French Championships
5. 1962 Wimbledon
6. 1962 US Championships
7. 1964 Wembley Pro
8. 1964 US Pro
9. 1965 Wembley Pro
10. 1966 Wembley Pro
11. 1966 US Pro
12. 1967 French Pro
13. 1967 Wembley Pro
14. 1967 US Pro
15. 1967 Wimbledon Pro
16. 1968 Wimbledon
17. 1969 Australian Open
18. 1969 French Open
19. 1969 Wimbledon
20. 1969 US Open

Exactly. And 23 > 20 as far as I'm concerned. ;)

Mustard
10-24-2012, 11:14 AM
I realize Laver didn't have much of a chance to play on hard, but we can't just ignore the fact that 3 of the majors were on the same surface when Laver played as well.

The different grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all very different. Brisbane was high bouncing for a grass-court due to the hot weather, Wimbledon was low bouncing but a reliableish bounce, whereas Forest Hills was a bog of a court that bounced awfully.

Laver also won the biggest hardcourt title of 1969, in Johannesburg.

Laver's 6 of his 11 were from the amateur, the smaller and much weak field than the pro. So that alone say Laver's 11 isn't equal to a modern 11 slams.

There were no open majors before 1968, so why bother calling Federer the GOAT when you are not taking into account all eras of tennis history?

Who cares if Laver didn't play those slam events when he was a pro since the amateur field was weak anyway.

How was it "weak"? Opponents like Emerson, Fraser, McKinley, MacKay and Mulligan were not weak.

Even if he decided to be an amateur so he can compete, nobody knows how many he would win, and to predict how many he would win is taking away from the amateur players(ie Emerson) who actually played and won !

Yet when Sampras was equalling/breaking the record for mainstream major wins in 1999-2000, the commentators talked about Emerson's 12 majors as though they were the equal of those that had been won by Sampras. That was clearly false. It's like today's pundits are willing to use the old amateur records from the pre-open days, but ignore the old professional records from the pre-open days, where Gonzales dominated like no other player.

Laver is the GOAT of pre-open era (that's when most of his career happened) and the very beginning of open.

There are plenty of contenders for the best player of the pre-open era. Laver is one of many.

Of course not. However, the Pro majors were closer to the format of the Masters, which many count as a major too.

The number of professional players was smaller than in the amateur game, but the pro majors were the biggest tournaments for the professional players at the time. They certainly weren't masters series equivalents, which is a ludicrous suggestion.

And this seems totally legit when you bundle "true" grand slam tournaments and Pro slams.

What's "true grand slams"? Before the open era, those "true grand slams" were for amateur players only. The amateur majors had the numbers in the draw, but not the best players in the world, whereas the professional players had most of the best players in the world but not the big numbers in the draw. In the 1930s, the gap between the top professional players and the top amateur players was close, but after Jack Kramer became the best professional player in 1948, the best professional players were a lot better than the best amateur players.

In 1978, when Bjorn Borg was going for a third Wimbledon title in a row, a big deal was made of the fact that no man had won 3 consective Wimbledon titles since Fred Perry from 1934-1936. This angle was then repeated in 1979, with no man having won 4 consecutive Wimbledon titles since Tony Wilding from 1910-1913, again in 1980 with no man having won 5 Wimbledon titles since Laurie Doherty from 1902-1906, and again in 1981 when Borg failed to match William Renshaw's 6 consecutive Wimbledon titles from 1881-1886.

The single biggest reason for these long gaps is due to the fact that the best amateur players would turn professional and would be barred from the majors until the open era began. Pancho Gonzales, as a professional, won 8 US Pro titles in 9 years. Ken Rosewall, as a professional, won 8 French Pro titles in 9 years. These sort of numbers never happened in the amateur game from the 1930s to 1960s (apart from Roy Emerson), due to the fact that they would turn professional if they were capable of a standard of tennis which was that good.

Exactly. And 23 > 20 as far as I'm concerned. ;)

You can use that argument if you choose. But we can say that Laver won Wimbledon 4 times (1961, 1962, 1968, 1969) and the Wimbledon Pro tournament of 1967, as Laver went a decade without losing a match at the venue, from losing the 1960 Wimbledon final to Neale Fraser to being shockingly beaten by Roger Taylor in their Round of 16 match at 1970 Wimbledon. On the other hand, Rosewall never won Wimbledon, losing in 4 Wimbledon finals (1954, 1956, 1970, 1974) as well as losing to Laver in the final of that 1967 Wimbledon Pro tournament.

Then there's Laver's Grand Slams of 1962 (amateur) and 1969 (open), combined with his professional Grand Slam of 1967. Rosewall had a professional Grand Slam in 1963.

Laver also usurped Rosewall as the best player in the world. Rosewall was always a thorn in Laver's side in the big matches, but Laver did usurp Rosewall and was the best player in the world for 7 years in my book. Rosewall wasn't past his best either, as he had greater longevity than Laver in the game, winning majors into the 1970s and reaching major finals as late as 1974, while Laver's form in the majors imploded after the 1960s ended, although he did reach two WCT Dallas finals (losing both to Rosewall). This is kind of ironic because in 1969, Rosewall's form had declined considerably while Laver's star was never better.

NadalAgassi
10-24-2012, 11:21 AM
Actually, you and NadalAgassi are kind of distorting the truth. Not disputing the fact that Laver didn't play them during these years, but he *could* have done so, he just *chose* not to.

Nobody "chose" not to back then, after a couple great years max you got big money offers and you were pro immediately. If you think Federer had played back then and wouldnt have done the same thing then that is crazy. The only reason Emerson stayed amateur is he was never in that much demand in the pro game so never even got a very lucrative offer to join a tour or play a head to head series, so he just decided to stay amateur.

BauerAlmeida
10-24-2012, 11:27 AM
We can play it.. And stop talking as if Fed had some severe form of mono.. If he had it, it was very MILD. A severe form of mono you can't even get out of bed, much less make finals of Grand Slam tournaments.





Yeah, LOL. He didn't have mono. And the funny thing is that it seems he got the largest mono ever because I heard that excuse for like 25 of the matches he lost.

Mustard
10-24-2012, 11:29 AM
Nobody "chose" not to back then, after a couple great years max you got big money offers and you were pro immediately. If you think Federer had played back then and wouldnt have done the same thing then that is crazy. The only reason Emerson stayed amateur is he was never in that much demand in the pro game so never even got a very lucrative offer to join a tour or play a head to head series, so he just decided to stay amateur.

Roy Emerson stayed amateur for so long due to his loyalty to Harry Hopman and the Australian Davis Cup team. The same was true with Neale Fraser. I believe Jack Kramer quit his role as the professional tour's promoter at the end of 1961, after he failed to convince either Roy Emerson or Rod Laver to turn professional. Pancho Gonzales had just gone into retirement (which would last for 18 months).

NadalAgassi
10-24-2012, 11:37 AM
Yeah, LOL. He didn't have mono. And the funny thing is that it seems he got the largest mono ever because I heard that excuse for like 25 of the matches he lost.

According to ****s his mono mysteriously ended when he began to dominate again in mid 2009 when Nadal went down injured (but dont dare ever talk about Federer benefiting from Nadal's injuries for his last resurgence to brief dominance, but dont dare ever overlook the mono for each and every Federer loss for atleast a year and half).

edberg505
10-24-2012, 11:42 AM
Which ones would you be referring to that one could reasonably expect:

-Weeks at #1. There wasnt even a computer ranking back then so technically impossible. The only way to fairly compare recent players to players BEFORE the official computer rankings is years at the #1 player. In the Open Era the most are Sampras with 6 and Federer with 5. Laver had 7 straight years he was credited as being the Worlds #1 player from 1964-1970, so beats both in that regard.

-Most slam titles. Like I said ban Federer from playing slams from ages 24 to 29 and see how many he wins.

-Most Wimbledons. See above.

I think you mean year end #1. There's a difference. But I honestly don't see how you can compare that either if there wasn't a computer ranking back then.

MarianArg
10-24-2012, 11:45 AM
Don't you dare people compare Laver's majors to roger's. Back in the day they didn't have 128 players draws, heck, some players had to play just two or three matches to win a major.

merlinpinpin
10-24-2012, 12:07 PM
The number of professional players was smaller than in the amateur game, but the pro majors were the biggest tournaments for the professional players at the time. They certainly weren't masters series equivalents, which is a ludicrous suggestion.

Who said anything about Master Series? I talked about *the* Masters, ie YEC, WTF, call it anything you like.

merlinpinpin
10-24-2012, 12:20 PM
-Most slam titles. Like I said ban Federer from playing slams from ages 24 to 29 and see how many he wins.

This is, of course, considering that today's tennis is the same as it was 40 years ago, ie not more physically taxing, so players can still be competitive well into their 30's, or even their 40's.

Which is, of course, bull.

Sabratha
10-29-2012, 08:53 PM
Dominance on every surface is the sign of a GOAT.

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 09:55 PM
Navratilova is considered the female GOAT by many despite that her stats on both hard courts and clay pale in comparision to numerous other all time greats. Basically it is all about her Wimbledon record.


Dominance on every surface is the sign of a GOAT.

if that is true Federer certainly isnt the GOAT. He certainly wasnt dominant on clay. Laver would be the only plausible choice in that case in fact. Gonzales was not dominant on clay, in fact never won a major clay title. Borg was not dominant on clay, in fact never won a major hard court title. Rosewall was only dominant on clay. Sampras was the furthest thing from dominant on clay, and so on.

Prisoner of Birth
10-29-2012, 10:04 PM
Navratilova is considered the female GOAT by many despite that her stats on both hard courts and clay pale in comparision to numerous other all time greats. Basically it is all about her Wimbledon record.




if that is true Federer certainly isnt the GOAT. He certainly wasnt dominant on clay. Laver would be the only plausible choice in that case in fact. Gonzales was not dominant on clay, in fact never won a major clay title. Borg was not dominant on clay, in fact never won a major hard court title. Rosewall was only dominant on clay. Sampras was the furthest thing from dominant on clay, and so on.

LOL, there goes your ignorance again. Laver has two Claycourt majors. Two. And only one of them was against the best in the world. The other was against Amateurs. If Federer isn't dominant on Clay, nor is Laver. Federer is the only player with 10 titles on all the important conditions : Grass, Clay, Hards and Indoors.

NadalAgassi
10-29-2012, 10:07 PM
LOL, there goes your ignorance again. Laver has two Claycourt majors. Two. If Federer isn't dominant on Clay, nor is Laver. Federer is the only player with 10 titles on all the important conditions : Grass, Clay, Hards and Indoors.

Yes Laver won the French Open in 1962 and 1969, and lost in the final in 1968, not even playing it in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967. He won the 2nd by thrashing Rosewall, the best clay courter of that era and the #2 or #3 clay courter of all time, in the final. He won Rome twice, the undisputed 2nd biggest clay event, and one Federer also never won. In 1971 he thrashed that years Roland Garros winner Jan Kodes in the final, but did not enter the French that year. His number of titles on clay dwarf Federer by a huge margin. Now go back under your rock.

Prisoner of Birth
10-29-2012, 10:11 PM
Yes Laver won the French Open in 1962 and 1969, and lost in the final in 1968, not even playing it in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967. He won the 2nd by thrashing Rosewall, the best clay courter of that era and the #2 or #3 clay courter of all time, in the final. He won Rome twice, the undisputed 2nd biggest clay event, and one Federer also never won. In 1971 he thrashed that years Roland Garros winner Jan Kodes in the final, but did not enter the French that year. Now go back under your rock.

Federer bageled Nadal, the undisputed GOD of Clay, and ended his insane Claycourt winning streak. Federer has made 5 French Open finals, all against the best players in the world, and won 1. Federer has 10 Titles on all important surfaces, not just Clay and Grass.

Laver has only made the French Open finals twice (not counting his amateur tournaments, for obvious reasons) and won once. Laver has just 1 pro-level Claycourt Major, the same as Federer. And wow, he beat Rosewall one freaking time. It's not like he beat Nadal.

Go dunk your head in a hole and never show it again. Laver was less-dominant on Clay than Federer.