At their absolute peaks, who would win?

Matheson

Matheson

Semi-Pro
Let's all stop and ponder for a moment; if you had the versions of Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, of the day in their lives they were all peaking. Let's just say all our arguments are invalid on what era suits which player, and assume God picked the day in which only he could know they truly peaked.

This question has plagued my mind for months, and I honestly don't know. The thought has kept me awake some nights and the different possible scenarios racing through my head are so incredibly intriguing yet complex. I've studied many forum threads regarding this issue and while some are informative, none actually confirm the rightful answer.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Why does it matter?

They should be weighed respective to what they've achieved in their given eras. Who would win at their "best" is a tail-chasing, never ending discussion.
 
Supertegwyn

Supertegwyn

Hall of Fame
What surface? What are the conditions? What ball are they using? Is it indoors or outdoors? Who is the umpire? Is Hawk-Eye on the court? How are the line judges? Is it windy? What racquet are they using? How old are they?

Too many variables.
 
Matheson

Matheson

Semi-Pro
Supertegwyn said:
What surface? What are the conditions? What ball are they using? Is it indoors or outdoors? Who is the umpire? Is Hawk-Eye on the court? How are the line judges? Is it windy? What racquet are they using? How old are they?

Too many variables.
Click to expand...

How old are they you ask? They can be 100 for all I care, if God deems that their best day, who are we to argue?
 
Russeljones

Russeljones

Talk Tennis Guru
Matheson said:
The thought has kept me awake some nights and the different possible scenarios racing through my head are so incredibly intriguing yet complex. I've studied many forum threads regarding this issue and while some are informative, none actually confirm the rightful answer.
Click to expand...

You should apologize to your mother for wasting her time.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Peak isn't static. It's based on surface and matchups. So, you can play how opponents let you play. When Federer was peak, surfaces were different.

Also, why does it matter? There are two peaks, absolute peak, which is based on level of play and it's hard to measure that. Relative peak, that means based on numbers and how you distance yourself from your peers.

So, Federer has best relative peak, and this is what greatness mean.

But in theory if everyone plays the perfect game, aggressive player should win, since no matter how good you are, you can't outrun the ball on the defense.

Also, would Rafa be able to reproduce his peak being born 6 years earlier without evolution? Wouldn't Federer have higher peak being born 6 years later? So, using h2h is bad for measuring peak.

My last point, it also matters how long you will be able to reproduce your peak. Fed did it for 4 years. What does it help Djokovic if he can only produce his peak for 11 months? Federer ends up with most titles anyway.

Why use only one day? Anything can happen on any day. Peak Rosol can produce great tennis for one match. That's why we use large sample size in the first place.

Roddick has higher absolute peak than Laver, Laver has higher relative peak, so he is greater.

OP, I hope you will sleep better, or I made things even worse for you now :)

Also, why would you assume a guy with most records doesn't also have the highest peak? Car who wins most races has higher top speed, isn't this logical to assume?
 
O

OhYes

Guest
vanioMan said:
Look at the number of Slam titles they have.

Now look at your question again.

There is your answer.
Click to expand...

t2629.gif
It doesn't go that way. Federer didn't have Nadal and Djokovic in their prime when he was young. Nor did he have matured Nadal and Djokovic after their prime.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
OhYes said:
t2629.gif
It doesn't go that way. Federer didn't have Nadal and Djokovic in their prime when he was young. Nor did he have matured Nadal and Djokovic after their prime.
Click to expand...
Then who was ranked 2 from 2005-2007?
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
OhYes said:
t2629.gif
It doesn't go that way. Federer didn't have Nadal and Djokovic in their prime when he was young. Nor did he have matured Nadal and Djokovic after their prime.
Click to expand...

You seriously want to use weak era theory? I thought you were Neil Degrasse Tyson fan and cared about logic and science.

Any first grader can debunk this circular logic.

Also, Neil Degrasse Tyson was on the show with Roddick once, did you see that?
Neil is just everywhere.
 
O

OhYes

Guest
jg153040 said:
You seriously want to use weak era theory? I thought you were Neil Degrasse Tyson fan and cared about logic and science.

Any first grader can debunk this circular logic.

Also, Neil Degrasse Tyson was on the show with Roddick once, did you see that?
Neil is just everywhere.
Click to expand...

Being in close proxymity with Neil doesn't help that ***** to go higher in my books. Even Neil can't cure his head.

And it's not weak or strong era theory. You just mentioned math, so use it - 2 people will get more chunks of 1 apple than 3 people.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
OhYes said:
Being in close proxymity with Neil doesn't help that ***** to go higher in my books. Even Neil can't cure his head.

And it's not weak or strong era theory. You just mentioned math, so use it - 2 people will get more chunks of 1 apple than 3 people.
Click to expand...

I don't see your point. Yes, if we put Djokodal in Fed's era, sure, Federer wins less, but so would they.

Roddick leads h2h with Djokovic by the way and with peak Federer around, Djokovic and Nadal would also win less.

Plus, if they are the same age, Federer has amazing past prime. So, he would be nr.1 today, because 34 year old Rafa wouldn't do anything vs him, since even 29 years old Rafa can't do much.

So, your theory that only Federer wins less if they are all the same age and Rafa and Djokovic win more is false.
 
Matheson

Matheson

Semi-Pro
jg153040 said:
I don't see your point. Yes, if we put Djokodal in Fed's era, sure, Federer wins less, but so would they.

Roddick leads h2h with Djokovic by the way and with peak Federer around, Djokovic and Nadal would also win less.

Plus, if they are the same age, Federer has amazing past prime. So, he would be nr.1 today, because 34 year old Rafa wouldn't do anything vs him, since even 29 years old Rafa can't do much.

So, your theory that only Federer wins less if they are all the same age and Rafa and Djokovic win more is false.
Click to expand...

It doesn't take much to spark a GOAT debate on this forum. :)
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Matheson said:
It doesn't take much to spark a GOAT debate on this forum. :)
Click to expand...

But you started it. You can't avoid results to determine who has the highest peak, so of course people will argue about results.

But, yeah, it's easy to start a goat debate. This board is the goat board basically, every thread is about goat, even if it's subtle.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Absolute peak? What I've seen from Djokovic and especially in 2011 and half of 2015 (by far the best 6 months any player has produced in the history, it has been sick and he has walked all over his opponents, showing incredible tennis), I'd have to say he would win. Also based on the years that has followed. Managing 1 loss against fedal that year. Also based on the years that has followed.

the fact that it is hard to hurt him thanks to his well-rounded game and no holes in his game, makes opponents very confused of what they could possibly do to hurt him - for example Nadal knew what he could do when playing fed to hurt him, with djoko that is not possible. Also you know what to do against nadal or murray, but against djokovic, you can't find it. That combined with the rest of his game, FH, BH, baseline game, serve, return, mentality, defense, consistency, balance, flexibility, he becomes the ultimate player, and thus unstoppable in his peak.

That is my opinion and based on what I've seen. Djokovic is more complete player than Fedalray, and if all of them is at their peak at the sametime during a whole calender year, I'd give him the edge.
 
Last edited:
vanioMan

vanioMan

Legend
rf-18 said:
absolute peak? What i've seen from djokovic and especially in 2011 and half of 2015 (by far the best 6 months any player has produced in the history, it has been sick and he has walked all over his opponents, showing incredible tennis), i'd have to say he would win. Also based on the years that has followed. Managing 1 loss against fedal that year. Also based on the years that has followed.

The fact that it is hard to hurt him thanks to his well-rounded game and no holes in his game, makes opponents very confused of what they could possibly do to hurt him - for example nadal knew what he could do when playing fed to hurt him, with djoko that is not possible. Also you know what to do against nadal or murray, but against djokovic, you can't find it. That combined with the rest of his game, fh, bh, baseline game, serve, defense, consistency, balance, flexibility, he becomes the ultimate player, and thus unstoppable in his peak.

That is my opinion and based on what i've seen. I'm being objective.
Click to expand...

=

spintowin said:
whoever you're a fan of most.
Click to expand...

__________
 
O

OhYes

Guest
jg153040 said:
I don't see your point. Yes, if we put Djokodal in Fed's era, sure, Federer wins less, but so would they.

Roddick leads h2h with Djokovic by the way and with peak Federer around, Djokovic and Nadal would also win less.

Plus, if they are the same age, Federer has amazing past prime. So, he would be nr.1 today, because 34 year old Rafa wouldn't do anything vs him, since even 29 years old Rafa can't do much.

So, your theory that only Federer wins less if they are all the same age and Rafa and Djokovic win more is false.
Click to expand...

First of all, Novak did win less because he was in Fed's and Nadal's prime.
Second, Roddick has nothing to do with these 3 players here nor his peak is of any significance to this topic. We are just talking about Fed, Rafa and Nole without Andy, Andrew or Davydenko in it.
If you are saying Roger would collect more trophies at his 34 than Novak and Rafa at 34, it is something unmeasurable because 2 of 3 players have not made to 34 yet.
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Funny how some guys here are actually trying to argue about this when there is no way to objectively argue in this case (hence my initial comment).

also LOL at RF-18 calling his views objective :lol:
 
Supertegwyn

Supertegwyn

Hall of Fame
SpinToWin said:
Funny how some guys here are actually trying to argue about this when there is no way to objectively argue in this case (hence my initial comment).

also LOL at RF-18 calling his views objective :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's baffling. This question is utterly impossible to answer, and even attempting to is an exercise in futility.
 
O

OhYes

Guest
Sabratha said:
Djokovic was ranked 3 by the end of 2007.

I'd say that's when his prime started.
Click to expand...

I'd say that was the time Djokovic was just better than any other player except Fedal. His prime started from 2011 and still is. Novak couldn't be in his prime for 8 years. :)
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
RF-18 said:
Absolute peak? What I've seen from Djokovic and especially in 2011 and half of 2015 (by far the best 6 months any player has produced in the history, it has been sick and he has walked all over his opponents, showing incredible tennis), I'd have to say he would win. Also based on the years that has followed. Managing 1 loss against fedal that year. Also based on the years that has followed.

the fact that it is hard to hurt him thanks to his well-rounded game and no holes in his game, makes opponents very confused of what they could possibly do to hurt him - for example Nadal knew what he could do when playing fed to hurt him, with djoko that is not possible. Also you know what to do against nadal or murray, but against djokovic, you can't find it. That combined with the rest of his game, FH, BH, baseline game, serve, return, mentality, defense, consistency, balance, flexibility, he becomes the ultimate player, and thus unstoppable in his peak.

That is my opinion and based on what I've seen. Djokovic is more complete player than Fedalray, and if all of them is at their peak at the sametime during a whole calender year, I'd give him the edge.
Click to expand...
lol_ricky_gervais.gif


The same Djokovic who is still losing to Federer in straights. Yep, he'd beat 2005 Federer alright..
 
Matheson

Matheson

Semi-Pro
SpinToWin said:
Funny how some guys here are actually trying to argue about this when there is no way to objectively argue in this case (hence my initial comment).

also LOL at RF-18 calling his views objective :lol:
Click to expand...

If these guys had of just answer the question instead of throwing back tedious stats, then this thread could be closed and I would sleep at night. Obviously no one here knows.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Supertegwyn said:
Yeah, it's baffling. This question is utterly impossible to answer, and even attempting to is an exercise in futility.
Click to expand...

Did I say for sure?

I said what I think would happen. But not for sure.

Or should we only discuss things that are certain?
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Matheson said:
If these guys had of just answer the question instead of throwing back tedious stats, then this thread could be closed and I would sleep at night. Obviously no one here knows.
Click to expand...

because there is no "answer". That simple. Seems like you'll continue having sleepless nights until you realize this simple fact.
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
RF-18 said:
Did I say for sure?

I said what I think would happen. But not for sure.

Or should we only discuss things that are certain?
Click to expand...

In the theory of knowledge and theory of science, statements which do not grant us any sort of insight into the world/broaden our understanding of (any aspect of) it are called senseless. So the things you said are as a whole meaningless and serve no purpose. So, actually, yeah, it'd be more fruitful to discuss things which can be discussed objectively.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
SpinToWin said:
In the theory of knowledge and theory of science, statements which do not grant us any sort of insight into the world/broaden our understanding of (any aspect of) it are called senseless. So the things you said are as a whole meaningless and serve no purpose. So, actually, yeah, it'd be more fruitful to discuss things which can be discussed objectively.
Click to expand...

What we can do is put their peaks against eachother, and then try to analyze, how he could hurt him, what this guy does better etc, but all is hypothetical of course. And the OP is asking us to try and guess.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
RF-18 said:
That is the argument that doesn't work. Not good enough.
Click to expand...
Why not?

Federer is a shell of his former self and still beats Djokovic. Peak for peak, anywhere except slow HC, Federer will most likely win.
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
RF-18 said:
What we can do is put their peaks against eachother, and then try to analyze, how he could hurt him, what this guy does better etc, but all is hypothetical of course. And the OP is asking us to try and guess.
Click to expand...

Not every question has an answer, particularly questions which delve into the realm of dream and fantasy. Similarly, not every question is worth discussing. A question whose answer cannot be determined is not worth discussing.

It's like the debate about the existence of God. Sounds very interesting and compelling, but once you realise that the criteria for a religious person to accept that God does not exist do not exist, it becomes a futile discussion with no purpose.
 
RF-18

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Sabratha said:
Why not?

Federer is a shell of his former self and still beats Djokovic. Peak for peak, anywhere except slow HC, Federer will most likely win.
Click to expand...

That then raises the question of how 20 year old Djokovic could bet prime Federer in straights at a slam?

Djokovic also beat him in 2007, etc. So, your theory falls apart.

''if he could beat him then, imagine what he would do then'' is really stupid. It goes both ways in this matter, if teenage djoko could beat prime federer at big events, what would then todays or prime/peak djokovic do then to prime/peak federer?

You see, I can use it too. And it does not work that way.

But we don't know what would happen for certain. I'm saying of the experience I have had watching fedalovic.
 
I

InjuredNo?

Banned
RF-18 said:
That then raises the question of how 20 year old Djokovic could bet prime Federer in straights at a slam?

Djokovic also beat him in 2007, etc. So, your theory falls apart.

''if he could beat him then, imagine what he would do then'' is really stupid. It goes both ways in this matter, if teenage djoko could beat prime federer at big events, what would then todays or prime/peak djokovic do then to prime/peak federer?

You see, I can use it too. And it does not work that way.

But we don't know what would happen for certain. I'm saying of the experience I have had watching fedalovic.
Click to expand...

Federer wasn't in his peak anymore in 2007. The kill shot FH was gone, the extra explosive movement was gone. And he was more programmed than before...less clever/improvisational/outside-the-box shotmaking.

Canas beat him twice earlier that year and Volandri steamrolled him.
 
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
^^ Federer was mono'd in early 2008.

-------

OT I don't think the question is straight forward. I don't think it's unreasonable to claim any of the 3 is the best player - all have points in their favor.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
RF-18 said:
That then raises the question of how 20 year old Djokovic could bet prime Federer in straights at a slam?

Djokovic also beat him in 2007, etc. So, your theory falls apart.

''if he could beat him then, imagine what he would do then'' is really stupid. It goes both ways in this matter, if teenage djoko could beat prime federer at big events, what would then todays or prime/peak djokovic do then to prime/peak federer?

You see, I can use it too. And it does not work that way.

But we don't know what would happen for certain. I'm saying of the experience I have had watching fedalovic.
Click to expand...
Because he was an All Time Great in his prime. 2008 was a very good year for Djokovic.

But what happened at the US Open? Djokovic lost in straights in a similar match.

Slow HC is Djokovic's forte also. Federer loved and has always loved the faster surfaces.

Clay would be up in the air, since it is a slower surface. 50/50 either way.

Anyway, this is beside the point. I already said in my original post that there's no point arguing this as it is all subjective; and there is no real answer. Just evaluate whoever is better by their results respective to their time periods. Don't try to compare because it can look pretty ugly either way.
 
Bukmeikara

Bukmeikara

Legend
The question is can a REAL PEAK PEAK Nadal be even to a REAL PEAK PEAK PEAK Djokovic? Just Peak FEDERER beated the PEAKEST Djokovic but the same PEAK FEDERER is no match to PEAK PEAK Nadal.
 
vanioMan

vanioMan

Legend
AO:
Plexicushion:
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal

Rebound Ace:
1. Federer
2. Nadal/Djokovic (can't really judge).

RG:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic

Wimbledon:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic

US Open:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
 
Bukmeikara

Bukmeikara

Legend
vanioMan said:
AO:
Plexicushion:
1. Djokovic
2. Federer
3. Nadal

Rebound Ace:
1. Federer
2. Nadal/Djokovic (can't really judge).

RG:
1. Nadal
2. Federer
3. Djokovic

Wimbledon:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic

US Open:
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
Click to expand...

So lets my paraphase, the natural fluent defensive style of Nadal when in PEAKED MODE is better than Djokovics PEAKED attacking mode on the normaly VERY FAST Us Open courts?

And why Federer is above Djokovic at RG?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Third Serve
  • Poll
Are the Next Gen at their peaks?
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Jokervich
Jokervich
F
  • Poll
Federer vs Djokovic, who would win at their peak?
2 3
Replies
115
Views
2K
Neptune
Neptune
R
RUSEDSKI'S VERDICT, "I think NADAL is seriously ready to win.....''
Replies
25
Views
2K
ninman
ninman
NonP
Open Era ATGs' Win %s Against Fellow Slam Champions and Career H2Hs vs. the Top 10
Replies
14
Views
722
Gizo
G
NonP
Why Sampras would completely own the so-called Big 4 poseurs at Wimbledon
2 3
Replies
133
Views
4K
abmk
abmk
Top