Federer No. 1 — in all sports

Monte Carlo and RG is isn't equivalent to freestyle in the Olympics in terms of popularity and importance . Freestyle was and still is the most popular/important events that is equal to Wimbledon in tennis.

Phelps dominated the 200 freestyle for years, and has a slew of relay golds swimming the 100 freestyle leg. Fine though, like I said I guess since the 50 and 100 freestyle are the only events that important Alexander Popov, Gary Hall Jr. and Pieter Van den Hoogenband are the best swimmers ever though, and not Michael Phelps. Nobody on the planet has any idea other than the grand experts of TTW, so thanks for enlightening me on this. :lol:

This is the only place on the planet with people stupid enough they don't think Phelps is the best swimmer ever (unlike Federer where there are tons of places and people who wouldn't think he is the best tennis player ever).

Similarily a tennis forum is the only place or sports forum anywhere where Federer possibly being the best athlete ever would be even discussed (and even here, a forum full of Federer worshippers 95% of posters have shot down the idea as ridiculous, but the Fed fanboys keep resurrecting this thread every 2 months as something to jerk off over I guess). On an off topic area of say a hockey, football, track and field, swimming, or soccer forum, a discussion about best athlete ever wouldn't even have Federer's name brought up, and if it was by anyone it would be laughed at.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
^^^

Come on, he's quite funny at times though. One of the better trolls. Stuff like this :lol:

That's what I was referring to, the idea is cool, but his "realization" is simply not funny and not sharp enough, not to mention that he uses too many words to express what he finds entertaining.

Anyway, my first comment was a joke, how could I even know the reasons why Steve has him on ignore list :D
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
That's what I was referring to, the idea is cool, but his "realization" is simply not funny and not sharp enough, not to mention that he uses too many words to express what he finds entertaining.

Anyway, my first comment was a joke, how could I even know the reasons why Steve has him on ignore list :D

Ah well, different trolls for different folks I guess :)
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Phelps is the best, Popov is my favourite, and one of the more compelling sportsmen in history IMO.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Phelps dominated the 200 freestyle for years, and has a slew of relay golds swimming the 100 freestyle leg. Fine though, like I said I guess since the 50 and 100 freestyle are the only events that important Alexander Popov, Gary Hall Jr. and Pieter Van den Hoogenband are the best swimmers ever though, and not Michael Phelps. Nobody on the planet has any idea other than the grand experts of TTW, so thanks for enlightening me on this. :lol:

This is the only place on the planet with people stupid enough they don't think Phelps is the best swimmer ever (unlike Federer where there are tons of places and people who wouldn't think he is the best tennis player ever).

Similarily a tennis forum is the only place or sports forum anywhere where Federer possibly being the best athlete ever would be even discussed (and even here, a forum full of Federer worshippers 95% of posters have shot down the idea as ridiculous, but the Fed fanboys keep resurrecting this thread every 2 months as something to jerk off over I guess). On an off topic area of say a hockey, football, track and field, swimming, or soccer forum, a discussion about best athlete ever wouldn't even have Federer's name brought up, and if it was by anyone it would be laughed at.


But you said MC and RG is parallel comparison to freestyle in swimming, which is dumb. MC isn't even a slam to begin with, and isn't even the most prestigious MS since it isn't a mandatory event anymore. RG was and will always be behind Wimbledon, and many listed below USO.

You are so delusional to think Federer isn't one of the great(if not the greatest) since he owns most of the tennis records in the open-era, and is considered the greatest by the international panel of tennis experts. But what do I expect from you(NadalAgassi) after denigrating Federer for many years.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
TMF, he was making a crude analogy that very successfully demonstrates a basic point. You aren't seeing the forest from the trees .. probably because you lack the talent. I'm sure if he wanted to, he could fine tune his analogy to make the same point but to be more accurate and precise—but he didn't want to waste minutes of his time coming up with absolutely perfect equivalents, and wanted to demonstrate a basic point.

I thought this was obvious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 512391

Guest
TMF, he was making a crude analogy that very successfully demonstrates a basic point. You aren't seeing the forest from the trees .. probably because you lack the talent.

Hahahaha, are you referring to my comment? Ok, fair enough...
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Hahahaha, are you referring to my comment? Ok, fair enough...

Good point. I did read your message but wasn't thinking about it when I made my post, but surely it did influence the post subconsciously—no doubt about it.
 
K

King Fed WW

Guest
Similarily a tennis forum is the only place or sports forum anywhere where Federer possibly being the best athlete ever would be even discussed (and even here, a forum full of Federer worshippers 95% of posters have shot down the idea as ridiculous, but the Fed fanboys keep resurrecting this thread every 2 months as something to jerk off over I guess). On an off topic area of say a hockey, football, track and field, swimming, or soccer forum, a discussion about best athlete ever wouldn't even have Federer's name brought up, and if it was by anyone it would be laughed at.

This 'soccer' forum thread got bumped specifically to include Federer. Nobody laughed, infact many agree he was greatest sportsman to ever live.

On this sports forum (a successor to the BBC 606, which disapeared due to govt cuts.) Federer made the final of a GOAT bracket, he lost the final 51% to 49%. Nobody was laughing.

Federer is in the conversation, that can't be denied. I wouldn't have him at #1 personally.

ESPN had to go beyond sports, after Roger gave them no choice

Is Federer on the same level in tennis that Scorsese is in film, that William Faulkner was in writing, that Quincy Jones is in musical production, that Meryl Streep is at acting, that Rachelle Ferrell is at singing, that Oscar Peterson was at playing the piano, that Oscar Niemeyer is at architectural modernism, that Steve Jobs was at modern innovation?

I understand that this is all subjective, but at some point (and that time is now) this conversation has to go public. Federer basically has given us no choice.

The Australian also thinks he is in the conversation

ROGER Federer is being hailed as possibly the greatest athlete in sports history after his spectacular return to the summit of tennis with a record-equalling seventh Wimbledon crown.


Federer's spellbinding 4-6 7-5 6-3 6-4 triumph over home hope Andy Murray not only ended all arguments over his status as tennis's undisputed king, but also sparked debate about his place in the pantheon of sport's all-time greats.

Daily Telegraph

And, such has been his domination of his sport over the last six years, many would argue he has a good claim to being the greatest exponent of any sport in history.
 

AngieB

Banned
Of course they didn't omit them. It's just that when they had to pick one they pick Federer, but that doesn't mean Jordan or Gretzky isn't a worthy #1.

Thanks for not posting with hashtags anymore. It's about time.
Canada.com probably gets its statistics from the same place you do. Wikipedia, Mr. Wiki.

Roger Federer is a lot of things in the sport of tennis but he isn't anywhere near being the best ever in sports, when his place in tennis history continues to be debated because of his 10-23 record against his chief rival.

I guess all the media hype of Eugenie Bouchard has in some way tainted Canada.com . They somehow have managed to turn the euphoria of Eugenie into a weightless trophy for Roger. Spectacular.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Canada.com probably gets its statistics from the same place you do. Wikipedia, Mr. Wiki.

Roger Federer is a lot of things in the sport of tennis but he isn't anywhere near being the best ever in sports, when his place in tennis history continues to be debated because of his 10-23 record against his chief rival.

I guess all the media hype of Eugenie Bouchard has in some way tainted Canada.com . They somehow have managed to turn the euphoria of Eugenie into a weightless trophy for Roger. Spectacular.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

Wikipedia's tennis numbers are as correct as the ones from other sources, but nice try Mrs. Hashtags.
I'm glad that you're only spamming the forum with this kind of stuff now though, instead of something so, shall I say, age-inappropriate.
;)

#RF #18
 

AngieB

Banned
Wikipedia's tennis numbers are as correct as the ones from other sources, but nice try Mrs. Hashtags.
I'm glad that you're only spamming the forum with this kind of stuff now though, instead of something so, shall I say, age-inappropriate.
;)

#RF #18
I just don't understand what internet governing body asserted Canada.com as a major hub for sports news? Most wouldn't have even known about it had it not been mentioned in this thread.

You consider Wikipedia as being accurate? I have a tropical island in the middle of Australia I would like to sell you.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Canada.com probably gets its statistics from the same place you do. Wikipedia, Mr. Wiki.

Roger Federer is a lot of things in the sport of tennis but he isn't anywhere near being the best ever in sports, when his place in tennis history continues to be debated because of his 10-23 record against his chief rival.

I guess all the media hype of Eugenie Bouchard has in some way tainted Canada.com . They somehow have managed to turn the euphoria of Eugenie into a weightless trophy for Roger. Spectacular.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB
Serena has no "rivals". Sampras never had a rival of his caliber (or better) either.
 

AngieB

Banned
Serena has no "rivals". Sampras never had a rival of his caliber (or better) either.
What are you talking about? Neither of the individuals you've identified are being discussed in this thread.

The Ides of March brings out the interesting ones for sure. What's next, discussion about Vince Van Patten in a Don Budge thread? You kids.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Canada.com probably gets its statistics from the same place you do. Wikipedia, Mr. Wiki.

Roger Federer is a lot of things in the sport of tennis but he isn't anywhere near being the best ever in sports, when his place in tennis history continues to be debated because of his 10-23 record against his chief rival.

I guess all the media hype of Eugenie Bouchard has in some way tainted Canada.com . They somehow have managed to turn the euphoria of Eugenie into a weightless trophy for Roger. Spectacular.

#PTL #JC4Ever

#AngieB

Federer is not the best in sports is your opinion, and you are not part of the majority.

My stats are coming from other sites not just Wiki.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
What are you talking about? Neither of the individuals you've identified are being discussed in this thread.

The Ides of March brings out the interesting ones for sure. What's next, discussion about Vince Van Patten in a Don Budge thread? You kids.

#PTL #JC4Ever

AngieB
They are examples of players you usually reinforce. Players who were dealt a luckier hand than Federer.

Vince Van Patten is also an actor. He left the profession prematurely to pursue this career choice, as such, he is not really brought up in any sort of conversation; as he is a lost relic of tennis. Something you neglect often on this forum.
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
This is most unfortunate, because I always enjoyed your insightful replies to some of the comments I made over the years. I do agree about HAMMER77777 though -- I myself have been giving a lot of thought to the idea of placing him or her on my ignore list, at least temporarily.:lol:

Don't worry. I haven't given up on you completely. :lol: I may have just been in a bad mood on that fateful day. You never know. You might make it off the list. Sometimes miracles happen. :twisted:
 

ultradr

Legend
Federer is definitely the most popular tennis players I've seen in last 25 years or so.

Tennis was narrow marketing tool. The top player had popularities mostly among serious tennis players.

But Federer. He is popular among serious players as well as casual non-players.
It has been quite surprising that most of non players do appreciate Federer's tennis.
 

World Beater

Hall of Fame
So out of some 17 individual swimming events, the only two that matter are the 50 and 100 freestyle according to you. Yeah sound logic. Akin to a Nadal fan saying the only events in tennis that matter are Monte Carlo and Roland Garros maybe. Who are the best swimmers ever then, Pieter Van Den Hoogenband and Gary Hall Jr. :lol: Wake me up when you return to planet Earth.

reading comprehension issues???

i have acknowledged that phelps is the best all around swimmer.

however, it doesn't mean he is dominant everywhere...he is not world class in freestyle.

a better analogy would be would be someone who was great in many running events but couldnt win the 100 m dash or isnt world class in 100 or 200m.

its like bolt except the converse. bolt is so famous just for really those two events...

but they are so prestigious that it almost doesnt matter that bolt doesnt run 400, 800, 1500, hurdles etc.
 
K

King Fed WW

Guest
The Greatest

article-0-1F64607000000578-393_634x488.jpg
 

GabeT

G.O.A.T.
Indeed Laver, Gonzalez challenge him in that regard - IMO they surpass him. He is only clearly #1 in the modern era.

What's the definition of greatest? The most dominant relative to contemporary peers? or the one that we think would beat all if they were all playing against each other at their respective peaks?
 

Chicharito

Hall of Fame
Sorry, but Darts is not a sport.
Darts????? LMAOOOOOOOOOOO
Darts, while fun, is not a sport. Neither is billiards.
Of course darts is a sport.
Hey if you claim darts is a sport you may as well claim chess and computer gaming is a sport. You expend way more energy at both of those.
What's your definition of a sport? Shouldn't it involve some degree of athleticism?

I see darts as a game.

How can anyone read this and deny Darts is a sports?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...sting2&usg=AFQjCNHsymkMKXldD0LCDXpOSQSjTXbohg


Sports fans who paid nearly £10 each to watch Sky's first pay-per-view darts match will not be refunded even though one of the players retired because of heat exhaustion.

Sky Sports' much hyped "showdown" between rival world champions Phil Taylor and Andy Fordham came to a premature conclusion when Fordham suffered a suspected asthma attack.

Hundreds of thousands of viewers are thought to have paid £9.95 each to watch last night's event.

Taylor was 5-2 up and needed two more sets for victory when Fordham threw in the towel. Taylor said he was "absolutely devastated" the match had been cut short.

But Sky Sports said today there was no chance of viewers being offered a refund. A spokesman said the Taylor-Fordham clash was the climax to four hours' of coverage.

"The transmission went on for nearly four hours and in fact it overran by 90 minutes," he said. "We saw three great games of darts, especially the Taylor-Fordham match, in which every set apart from the first and the last went to [the maximum] five legs."

It was the first time Sky had broadcast a pay-per-view sports event, which it usually restricts to more mainstream sports such as football and boxing. But the response to last night's match - a reported 1 million viewers signed up - suggests there will be more darts events to come.

However, no official audience figures are yet available for last night's event. A Sky spokesman refused to comment on the possibility of the experiment being repeated in the future.


Fordham, a publican from Kent who spent yesterday afternoon preparing for the match drinking lager at the bar, sweated profusely under the lights at the Circus Tavern in Purfleet, Essex. Darts commentator Sid Waddell said he was "sweating like a hippo in a power shower".

Fordham, nicknamed "the Viking", took a break at the end of the seventh set, and spent 15 minutes wrapped in cool towels, but he was in too much discomfort to continue. Taylor was awarded the match by default.

Promoter Barry Hearn, who persuaded Fordham to retire, said: "Sometimes the fighter has to be saved from himself and Andy Fordham has got to be saved from himself. He's not well. To go out again now would be a huge risk to his personal health and I am not prepared to take that risk.

"I'm afraid we're in a situation where we have to say that,
to avoid further punishment, Andy Fordham will not be coming out and Phil Taylor will be declared the winner. I think he's fine, but I don't think if he goes through any more that he would be, and that's a risk that we are not prepared to take. He's taken enough."


Fordham is world champion of the British Darts Organisation while Taylor - nicknamed "the Power" - is champion of the Professional Darts Council, an alternative world darts body set up 11 years ago. Until last night the champions of the two organisations had never met.

Taylor said: "I'm absolutely devastated, not just for myself but for the people who have paid all the money and also for the people sitting out there waiting. During that set Andy said, 'I can't get my breath, I can't breathe.' I said, 'Do you want to have a break?' and he said, 'I need to, yeah'."

Last night's event also featured a match between veterans Eric Bristow and John Lowe, which Bristow, the "crafty cockney", won 6-1, and Roland "the Tripod" Scholden who beat Wayne "Hawaii 501" Mardle .











Phelps is the best, Popov is my favourite, and one of the more compelling sportsmen in history IMO.

Anything in particular worth reading/watching?
 

toby55555

Hall of Fame
Julio Cesar Chávez is worth a mention. 27 successful World Title defences, champion in 3 weight divisions. 87 fight winning streak.
 

ScentOfDefeat

G.O.A.T.
The way the media portray him he could also be the greatest human being who ever existed and a a Nobel prize winner in every category available.
 

lud

Hall of Fame
OK. Federer is not No.1 in all sports in history. Prime reason is his h2h versus Nadal and Djokovic. He wasn't TOTAL dominating.

I'll give you examples of greater dominations in other sports:
Pele and Maradona(even Zidane could be in discussion) - Football
Jordan - Basketball
Woods - Golf
Phelps - Swimming
Bolt and Bubka - Athletics
Armstrong - Cycling
Bjorndalen - Biathlon
O'Sullivan - Snooker
Kasparov - Chess
Gretzky - Hockey
Schumacher - F1
Rossi - Moto
Karabatic - Handball
All this sportsmans were more dominating in their sports, IMHO. But, without doubt ' Federer is greater gentlman and far greater example for young people.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
OK. Federer is not No.1 in all sports in history. Prime reason is his h2h versus Nadal and Djokovic. He wasn't TOTAL dominating.

I'll give you examples of greater dominations in other sports:
Pele and Maradona(even Zidane could be in discussion) - Football
Jordan - Basketball
Woods - Golf
Phelps - Swimming
Bolt and Bubka - Athletics
Armstrong - Cycling
Bjorndalen - Biathlon
O'Sullivan - Snooker
Kasparov - Chess
Gretzky - Hockey
Schumacher - F1
Rossi - Moto
Karabatic - Handball
All this sportsmans were more dominating in their sports, IMHO. But, without doubt ' Federer is greater gentlman and far greater example for young people.

Explain O'Sullivan, please.
 
N

NewOrder

Guest
The way the media portray him he could also be the greatest human being who ever existed and a a Nobel prize winner in every category available.

Sadly, the media are seriously misguided. The greatest human being who ever existed (or organism, for that matter - sorry funguses) and future recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is yours truly. Deal with it, Federer. The Nobel Prize in Physics is cool too.
 

lud

Hall of Fame
Explain O'Sullivan, please.
Positive H2H with ALL his toughest opponents - Davis 22-6,Hendry 30-21,Higgins 30-27,Williams 30-11,Selby 16-9. 5X World Champion. 13x Maximum Break(more than with anyone in history). Plays with BOTH hands. In many lists named greatest and most naturally gifted player of all time. Snooker is pretty much popular today mostly because of him. Enough?
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Positive H2H with ALL his toughest opponents:Davis 22-6,He dry 30-21,Higgins 30-27,Williams 30-11,Selby 16-9. 5X World Champion. 13x Maximum Break(more than with anyone in history). Plays with BOTH hands. In many lists named greatest and most naturally gifted player of all time. Snooker is pretty much popular today mostly because of him. Enough?

Not exactly. He's never sustained his dominance like Davis or Hendry did. After all this time he still hasn't won as many ranking titles as Stephen Hendry and is equal with John Higgins who is firmly from his generation. He doesn't have the Triple Crown (loosely similar to Slam) titles record. He also isn't the most responsible player for popularising snooker but he's certainly saved it to a great degree over his career, especially through the 2000s. He's never achieved the full set of TC events in a single season, which MarkJ Williams has done, who is also a part of the class of '92. He's only once ever won two TC events in a row. There's a lot that goes against Ronnie O'Sullivan's supposed dominance. Also, more detailed breakdowns of his H2H's suggests that Higgins really has the best of him more often than not when it matters, but yes Ronnie leads the H2Hs, yet never could establish consistent enough form to truly dominate the game. He admits himself that he lacks the mentality to do what Steve Davis or Stephen Hendry did. It's highly unusual that such a prolific winner has only put together a streak of 2 TC titles once in his career. He produces pockets of fantastic dominance very sporadically but has never comprehensively dominated any single season.

Yeah, I don't think O'Sullivan displayed dominance in snooker to the extent Federer has in tennis. Mix O'Sullivan with Hendry and snooker might have its Federer.
 

lud

Hall of Fame
Not exactly. He's never sustained his dominance like Davis or Hendry did. After all this time he still hasn't won as many ranking titles as Stephen Hendry and is equal with John Higgins who is firmly from his generation. He doesn't have the Triple Crown (loosely similar to Slam) titles record. He also isn't the most responsible player for popularising snooker but he's certainly saved it to a great degree over his career, especially through the 2000s. He's never achieved the full set of TC events in a single season, which MarkJ Williams has done, who is also a part of the class of '92. He's only once ever won two TC events in a row. There's a lot that goes against Ronnie O'Sullivan's supposed dominance. Also, more detailed breakdowns of his H2H's suggests that Higgins really has the best of him more often than not when it matters, but yes Ronnie leads the H2Hs, yet never could establish consistent enough form to truly dominate the game. He admits himself that he lacks the mentality to do what Steve Davis or Stephen Hendry did.

Yeah, I don't think O'Sullivan displayed dominance in snooker to the extent Federer has in tennis. Mix O'Sullivan with Hendry and snooker might have its Federer.
Well, I agree with some of your stuff. But, c'mom Davis and Hendry didn't have as tough competition as Ronnie did. Toughest rival of Davis was Alex 'High or Drunk' Higgins. He's much younger than Davis and 6 yrs younger than Hendry. So,he still can surpass them. And most important,at their primes:
1. O'Sullivan (not even close)
2. Hendry
3. John Higgins
4. Davis
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
Well, I agree with some of your stuff. But, c'mom Davis and Hendry didn't have as tough competition as Ronnie did. Toughest rival of Davis was Alex 'High or Drunk' Higgins. He's much younger than Davis and 6 yrs younger than Hendry. So,he still can surpass

I agree that their competition was less tough, but where are we really going here? I don't believe for a second that the depth in snooker rivals that of tennis, for example. Most of the good players still hail from the UK whereas tennis is a legitimately global sport. I think Ronnie's best claim for dominance (which you touched upon) is his peak level. Relatively speaking, I think his peak level in snooker is stronger than Federer's in tennis. How much of this is down to Phil Taylor syndrome though? Phil Taylor looked completely unassailable a few years ago and was producing the dominance of Hendry and the longevity of O'Sullivan. Now here we are in 2017, and his pure darts level has already been surpassed by Michael Van Gerwen.

O'Sullivan has the time to still surpass Hendry's record of TC events for sure. The 7 WSCs will be hard to equal though and that is the ultimate flagship event. Also, the 36 ranking titles might be out of reach (needs 8 to tie). Clearly, his skill-set is transcendent in the sport and has survived multiple generations. There's a lot to be said for that. All in all, Ronnie O'Sullivan is a very curious case in sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lud

slal1984

Professional
Another major site calling Roger best athlete of all sports.

........

Some people are still debating whether Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player of all time. But as Katie (or at least her lawyer) said to Tom, it’s over.

Monday, Federer will set a record by being ranked No. 1 in the world for the 287th week of his career. Along with his many other unassailable records suggest, that confirms he’s not only the best player in tennis history, but the most successful male athlete in any major individual pro sport. Federer is simply the most dominant competitor of our time.

Major totals:

Yes, Jack Nicklaus won 18, but he did that over a 24-year stretch, winning three majors in his 40s (rare in golf, but impossible in tennis). Federer has appeared in 24 finals (a tennis record) and won 17 (another record) over a stretch of only 37 tournaments. That means for nine years he made it to just under two-thirds of the finals and won almost half of them. For almost six of those years, you had to beat Federer to win a major. He either won or lost to the eventual champion in 23 straight Grand Slam tournaments.

Three majors, three times:

Tiger Woods had a great year in 2000, when he won three majors and finished fifth in the other one. In 2005, he won two majors and finished second and fourth in the other two.

Those are two phenomenal seasons. Federer has had five of a comparable nature. He won three majors in a season three different times, and in two of those years he was the runner-up in the fourth tournament. In 2005, he won two Slams and was a semifinalist in the other two. And in 2009 he won two majors and was runner up in the other two.

An unprecedented reign:

From 2004 to 2007, Federer had a streak of glory unequalled by any pro athlete. He won 11 of 16 Grand Slam events. Compare that to other tennis greats. In his best four-year stretch, Pete Sampras won seven majors. Same for Rafael Nadal. Last year, Novak Djokovic had one of the best seasons in tennis history and he started 2012 by winning the Australian Open. To match Federer, however, he’d have to win seven of the next nine Slams. Good luck with that, Nole.

Steffi Graf, who won 22 majors, picked up 10 trophies in her best four-year stretch, one fewer than Federer.

Even more impressive is that Federer continued to play almost as well even after those spectacular years, appearing in eight of the next nine major finals and winning four of them.

In Tiger Woods’ best four years, he won seven majors. He finished second once and in the top 10 three other times. But in the other five events, he finished anywhere from 12th to 29th. Three of those finishes were the equivalent of being knocked out in the third round of a tennis tournament. That hasn’t happened to Federer since 2004.

Unmatchable streaks:

Federer has now appeared in 33 straight quarterfinals at majors. That’s more than eight years of making it to the final eight and more than twice as many as the next-best streak, Ivan Lendl at 14. But Federer also rattled off 23 straight appearances in the semifinals, almost six years of top-four appearances (the next-best streak is 10). And he made 10 straight trips to major finals, missed one and then went on to make the next eight, giving him a stretch of 18 finals in 19 tournaments. No one else in the Open era has made more than five finals in a row. So Federer has the best streak (twice as long as anyone else) and the second-best (60 per cent longer).

Number one:

Monday, Federer will achieve the one record many thought he would miss. Nadal has been No. 1 for 102 weeks in his career, so he’s still three-and-a-half years back. Djokovic has 53 weeks at No. 1, so he needs four-and-a-half more years to match Federer.

At one point, Federer was No. 1 for 237 consecutive weeks, a period of more than four-and-a-half years. That record is a year-and-a-half longer than the previous mark.

Overall greatness:

Even Federer’s supposed slumps are only rough spots in comparison to his greatness. Many people point out he has won only one major since January 2010. But he has still made the semifinals at seven of the past eight Grand Slam tournaments. Many players of any age would be thrilled with that, let alone those in their 30s. Djokovic is the only player who has made more semi-finals over the same stretch.

And it’s not like Federer has been playing against a weak field. He’s up against one of the other all-time greats in Nadal, plus Djokovic, who could join the list in a year or two. If Nadal had chosen soccer over tennis, Federer might have another five major trophies in his closet.

Federer might stretch some of these records even further. But even if he retired today, he’d be not only the greatest tennis player ever, but the best individual athlete of our time.

http://www.canada.com/Sports/Tennis/Federer+sports/6935491/story.html

Posted for fellow Roger fans.

Bitter fans of other players may disregard.
You cannot compare across sports, he would suck as basketball. WMCJ
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
OK. Federer is not No.1 in all sports in history. Prime reason is his h2h versus Nadal and Djokovic. He wasn't TOTAL dominating.

I'll give you examples of greater dominations in other sports:
Pele and Maradona(even Zidane could be in discussion) - Football
Jordan - Basketball
Woods - Golf
Phelps - Swimming
Bolt and Bubka - Athletics
Armstrong - Cycling
Bjorndalen - Biathlon
O'Sullivan - Snooker
Kasparov - Chess
Gretzky - Hockey
Schumacher - F1
Rossi - Moto
Karabatic - Handball
All this sportsmans were more dominating in their sports, IMHO. But, without doubt ' Federer is greater gentlman and far greater example for young people.
lol you are bringing up h2h. Let's take Jordan past his prime from 99-03 and see how he would do against Shaq/Duncan.

Phelps won't swim when he's past his physical prime, much less 8-10 years past it. Armstrong is a cheat, Woods had a great peak(not better than Federer given tennis is far more physically demanding) but zero longevity
 

CremoCream

Rookie
lol you are bringing up h2h. Let's take Jordan past his prime from 99-03 and see how he would do against Shaq/Duncan.

Phelps won't swim when he's past his physical prime, much less 8-10 years past it. Armstrong is a cheat, Woods had a great peak(not better than Federer given tennis is far more physically demanding) but zero longevity


Jordan didn't play at the ages of 35,36, or 37. . At the age of 31 jordan came back end of the season and lost to the shaq orlando magic 4-2. A preped jordan, at the age of 32, swepped that same team in the playoffs 4-0. Jordan did these at the age of, 32,33,34. Im pretty sure if jordan competed in 99, he would have beaten that spurs team into oblivion. Shaq and kobe 2000-2002 is a different animal so i don't know how'd he fair.

For me federer is behind Jordan, as Jordan is behind Ali.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Jordan didn't play at the ages of 35,36, or 37. . At the age of 31 jordan came back end of the season and lost to the shaq orlando magic 4-2. A preped jordan, at the age of 32, swepped that same team in the playoffs 4-0. Jordan did these at the age of, 32,33,34. Im pretty sure if jordan competed in 99, he would have beaten that spurs team into oblivion. Shaq and kobe 2000-2002 is a different animal so i don't know how'd he fair.

For me federer is behind Jordan, as Jordan is behind Ali.
99 spurs were a really good team. Lost 2 games in the playoffs, had prime Robinson and Duncan and several good role players along with Pop. 98 felt like Jordan's last hurrah I don't think a declined Jordan would have beaten those Spurs.

Also Shaq had a down year and struggled with injuries in 96. And that Bulls team was the best ever, can't really compare that to 99 where everyone would be declined.
 
Top