billnepill
Hall of Fame
Good job guys. All good arguments Desperate Knight failed to address. He clearly lost
A catch 22
- Thread starter The Dark Knight
- Start date
TopFH
Hall of Fame
If you want this sort of discussion, you should also consider that arguments against you may be correct.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I do . But honestly I haven't really heard anything .
The Dark Knight
Legend
What were they ?
The Dark Knight
Legend
He was known as a clay court speacilist .... But let's say your right . What is your point ?
TopFH
Hall of Fame
Back in the "weak era" thread, you only accepted arguments you liked.
You never acknowledged reasonable posts like this:
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
The ones you didn't respond to (which includes one of my own in this thread).
No, he wasn't. My point is that Nadal was playing better during Federer's prime than you want to acknowledge. Of course, I know why you don't want to admit it, but it's true nonetheless and the facts prove it.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
God, you are such a *********.
I numbered your points to address each.
1. - The quality of Federer's slams shouldn't be put on such a high Pedestal. If we discount first time finalists and non slam winners as opponents in finals, Nadal loses a number of majors as well, as does Djokovic. So stop holding a double standard. All that matters is that Federer has won 16, Nadal 10, Djokovic 5. There's no point trying to 'analyze' which slams are worth more than others, because that's not how history does it, as much as you'd like it to be like that.
2. - Federer's win over Soderling is no less worthy than Nadal's Wimbledon 2010 win; He beat the guy who beat the defending champ, so it's legitimate. It's not Federer's fault Nadal couldn't reach the final. Should everyone's slam victories against Non-Nadal's not count, then? If you think so, GTFO. if not, stop holding a double standard.
3. Laver and Budge both won CYGS. Djokovic is going for 4 in a row, and just because he could do it doesn't automatically mean that the fact that Federer has won 10 more majors is suddenly erased. For me, Djokovic joins the tier of guys like Nadal and Sampras, but not yet on Federer's level. No way.
4. Again, it's not Federer's fault Nadal and Djokovic weren't good enough to meet him in major finals. Agassi, Bagdhatis and company were, so they're legitimate slam opponents, as much as it irks you. Get over it. At least Agassi, Roddick, and Hewitt have won majors, unlike Andy Murray...
5. Obviously not, but it's better supporting evidence than 6 or 10. Duh.
6. I would put Agassi and Sampras at nearly the same level. Sampras won where he could, and while he was unable to conquer the French, he won at least one masters on clay, not to mention the DC final in which he beat two seasoned claycourters in dramatic fashion. But Sampras shouldn't be compared to Fed. He's won multiple masters events on clay, and a French open. Fed's claycourt resume is OBVIOUSLY better than Federer's, so it's a bad comparison.
7. Federer will not be dethroned. You can't suddenly say someone's accomplishments count for naught. Djokovic can have one record that Fed didn't. One. Federer has plenty that Djokovic doesn't, and so his argument as being the best ever still has merit, regardless of what happens tomorrow.
8. Okay, I'll hold my breath until I hear the proclamation that Djokovic, not Federer, is GOAT. Or, we can make a bet.. if you like.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Cup, it's no use, my friend. He doesn't acknowledge posts which disproves his claims or shatters his reality. Also, he's no Djokovic fan. He hates Federer (as shown with his numerous threads trying to downplay Federer's achievements). I'm pretty sure that should Djokovic lose tomorrow, he'll create a thread saying why Nadal has more GOAT credentials than Federer.
Day Tripper
Semi-Pro
Best case scenario Nadal will win approx 14 slams - comprising a likely breakdown of 9 Roland Garros, 3 Wimbledon, 1 Aust Open, 1 US Open
I would still rate him below Sampras should he achieve this based on his comparatively poor showing in the most prestigious grand slams - Wimbledon and the US Open.
The big problem with Nadals record is that whilst he has dominated Roland Garros his performance at the other slams has been average compared to Federer and even Sampras.
Nadal could win 17 slams and i still think he would be rated behind Federer given that he would still most likely have only one US Open and 3-4 Wimbledon's.
The slams are not rated equally - we all know that. No way you can be considered greatest of all time and not have dominated Wimbledon and the US Open.
This is why Nadal will be remembered as the greatest clay courter ever but will never be a real contender for GOAT.
He also falls way short when it comes to weeks/consecutive weeks at number 1 not to mention the fact that he has never won a WTF.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Not true. Everyone knows that Laver would have won many more Slams had he been allowed to compete in them between 1963 to 1967. Everyone knows that he probably would have won at least 10 or more Slams over those 5 years when he was in his prime. But he turned pro so was barred from the Slams before the Open era. Thus, people recognize that Laver would have won a total of at least 21 or more Slam singles titles if they had open tennis during his prime. I mean the guy won calendar Slams before and after his prime. Imagine how many more he would have won DURING his prime. It would be the equivalent of taking away all the Slams that Federer won during his prime between 2004-2008 and only counting the ones Federer won in 2003 and prior and 2009 and after.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Laver did win 9 professional majors from 1963-1967 (the pre-open era period when Laver was a pro), so counting those, Laver won 20 majors. Of course, the pro majors had smaller fields, but the amateur majors didn't have the very best players in the world competing. There were no open major equivalents before April 1968, but a pro/am split.
And if it was bad for Laver, it was even worse for players like Pancho Gonzales and Pancho Segura. Segura turned professional in late 1947, along with Dinny Pails and Jack Kramer to all play on the same world pro tour. Segura was to play against Pails in a head-to-head series on the undercard of the biggest head-to-head series where Jack Kramer would challenge the best professional player in Bobby Riggs.
When Segura turned pro, he hadn't won a major as an amateur, and that was basically it for him as far as the 4 majors were concerned, as it was over 20 years before the open era would start. Segura did play in some open majors, but he was in his late 40s by then, and over a decade past the days of his best tennis. In my opinion, Segura was second best player of the 1950s behind Gonzales, and won 3 US Pro titles on 3 different surfaces. But check the narrow minded lists of the number of each player's majors, and Segura has zero. That is not a reflection on reality and is very one dimensional.
Gonzales would be on 2 majors on the narrow minded list, but he won 15 pro majors, having turned professional in late 1949.
Laver may have had it bad between 1963-1967 with some of his prime years cut out of the mainstream tennis establishment, but the two Panchos had it a lot worse. Even today, there are lists where Roy Emerson (as good as he was) is ranked above the Panchos. That's clearly wrong.
And it's because of all this that you seldom saw any players in that era winning multiple Wimbledons in a row or multiple US Championships in a row. This is because if the best amateur players were that good, they nearly always turned professional and thus got barred from the majors. That was the case from Bill Tilden in 1931 onwards. The only really good amateur players who seemed to resist turning professional after this period were John Bromwich, Ted Schroeder, Neale Fraser and Roy Emerson. Of course, Emerson eventually did turn professional just as the open era was about to start, but his best days were behind him by then, at least in singles.
And if it was bad for Laver, it was even worse for players like Pancho Gonzales and Pancho Segura. Segura turned professional in late 1947, along with Dinny Pails and Jack Kramer to all play on the same world pro tour. Segura was to play against Pails in a head-to-head series on the undercard of the biggest head-to-head series where Jack Kramer would challenge the best professional player in Bobby Riggs.
When Segura turned pro, he hadn't won a major as an amateur, and that was basically it for him as far as the 4 majors were concerned, as it was over 20 years before the open era would start. Segura did play in some open majors, but he was in his late 40s by then, and over a decade past the days of his best tennis. In my opinion, Segura was second best player of the 1950s behind Gonzales, and won 3 US Pro titles on 3 different surfaces. But check the narrow minded lists of the number of each player's majors, and Segura has zero. That is not a reflection on reality and is very one dimensional.
Gonzales would be on 2 majors on the narrow minded list, but he won 15 pro majors, having turned professional in late 1949.
Laver may have had it bad between 1963-1967 with some of his prime years cut out of the mainstream tennis establishment, but the two Panchos had it a lot worse. Even today, there are lists where Roy Emerson (as good as he was) is ranked above the Panchos. That's clearly wrong.
And it's because of all this that you seldom saw any players in that era winning multiple Wimbledons in a row or multiple US Championships in a row. This is because if the best amateur players were that good, they nearly always turned professional and thus got barred from the majors. That was the case from Bill Tilden in 1931 onwards. The only really good amateur players who seemed to resist turning professional after this period were John Bromwich, Ted Schroeder, Neale Fraser and Roy Emerson. Of course, Emerson eventually did turn professional just as the open era was about to start, but his best days were behind him by then, at least in singles.
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
Holy crap I was out to dinner for a few hours and I come back to list of my points to prove ......well what exactly are you trying to prove?
This is really a very simple premise :
If Joker wins Tommorow a very strong argument can be made that he is the goat.
He will for all intents and purposes have won a calendar grand slam and beaten Nadal .....something no on the face of the planet has been able to do in a FO final.
So your counter to this is a listing of my posts?
I'm sorry but I just don't get it ?
I think the truth is that you have no counter.
But I'll try for you guys ....,,of I were you I would stick
To "fed has won 16 slams"......I think
That's a weak argument but it's the only one you have .
If on the other hand Nadal wins your argument that Fed is the GOAT still
Has some credibility .
So pray nadal wins or say bye bye to Fed as Goat.
This is really a very simple premise :
If Joker wins Tommorow a very strong argument can be made that he is the goat.
He will for all intents and purposes have won a calendar grand slam and beaten Nadal .....something no on the face of the planet has been able to do in a FO final.
So your counter to this is a listing of my posts?
I'm sorry but I just don't get it ?
I think the truth is that you have no counter.
But I'll try for you guys ....,,of I were you I would stick
To "fed has won 16 slams"......I think
That's a weak argument but it's the only one you have .
If on the other hand Nadal wins your argument that Fed is the GOAT still
Has some credibility .
So pray nadal wins or say bye bye to Fed as Goat.
dcdoorknob
Hall of Fame
It must suck to only be able to watch tennis through the warped lenses of super-fandom, to the point where you are completely unable to appreciate good tennis for it's own sake.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Ok .....good point ....I don't agree but good point.
But this just doesn't go for Laver.....
Borg won more slams than Nadal.....but Nadal won
On all surfaces and against Federer.....so who is the better player?
Clearly Nadal wins even though Borg has more slams.
Sampras has more slams than Agassi .....but again Agassi won on all surfaces and has a career slam. So who is better?
The amount of slams one wins is important but I think other factors are equally important if not more important .
If Joker wins Tommorow he will be the GOAT in a lot people's minds .
The Dark Knight
Legend
Can you please just counter my points?
dcdoorknob
Hall of Fame
MY point is that there are two great players playing tomorrow. Each with their own piece of history to try and capture.
All you can do is think about how it affects another player who isn't even involved in the match, and wonder who's win would affect this player's "legacy" less so you know who to root for.
I personally would hate to be limited to my enjoyment of a great and enjoyable sport in such a way. Obviously, to each his or her own though, and you are obviously not alone as this board is full of 'fans' of various players who routinely demonstrate such an inability to actually appreciate tennis for its own sake.
All you can do is think about how it affects another player who isn't even involved in the match, and wonder who's win would affect this player's "legacy" less so you know who to root for.
I personally would hate to be limited to my enjoyment of a great and enjoyable sport in such a way. Obviously, to each his or her own though, and you are obviously not alone as this board is full of 'fans' of various players who routinely demonstrate such an inability to actually appreciate tennis for its own sake.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I don't know why you have to get personal.
Yes I find tennis fascinating and discussing who is the greatest of all time .
I also cannot believe how the historical importance of Tommorows math has not been realized .
The fact that Federer could arguably lose his goat status in one day is just amazingly interesting to me.
Tommorows match is I would say one of the five most important matches of all time .
.
BAHAHAHAHA, yep, and Fed won the other four.
Slice&Smash
Rookie
WAW.. You guys are desperate enough to seek prayers from Federer fans???
It's judgement day for you, Nadal fans.... Nothing will help you today. :twisted:
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Djokovic winning four in a row against Nadal on clay would be an amazing achievement. But as Rod Laver himself pointed out it's not the same as a Calender Year Slam. Holding all four in a year constitutes the Grand Slam. Holding four in a row across two years does not and imo there's a greater level of prestige and pressure going for the Calender Year Slam and I think the closest anyone has come to doing that since Laver was Roger in 2006 and 2007. Laver himself does not consider winning four across two years in the same league as holding all four in a calender year as he pointed out when Nadal was going for four in a row at the AO.
Anyway, that doesn't matter. Beating Nadal this year at RG is going to be a tall order and IF Djokovic can pull it off he deserves the highest praise for it because he will be the first man to do it. Although being a Roger fan, I can root for neither
Anyway, that doesn't matter. Beating Nadal this year at RG is going to be a tall order and IF Djokovic can pull it off he deserves the highest praise for it because he will be the first man to do it. Although being a Roger fan, I can root for neither
nadal_slam_king
Banned
I wonder what Rod Laver thinks of a player winning 4 straight slams on clay, grass and hardcourt.
Laver won his Calendar Year Grand Slams on just clay and grass.
And Nadal won 3 straight slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in 2010.
Laver won his Calendar Year Grand Slams on just clay and grass.
And Nadal won 3 straight slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in 2010.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Reading Comprehension fail? I obviously argued against your points. If you can't see that, get off these boards, you don't have a prayer.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Holy crap that was a lot of work.
Anyway:
1- I do not agree that all that matters is the number of slams you win.
2- Feds slam over soderling is less worthy because Nadal actually beat Federer at the AO so he already proved himself. Federer on the other hand has never beaten nadal on clay at slam or anything other than grass for that matter
3- Djokovic winning 4 in a row is far more monumental than 16 slams beating players of lower quality than nadal or joker. By the way I think nadal and joker are both better than fed.
4- what are you talking about ? Nadal is 6-2 in slams against fed. I believe joker is 2-1 .
5- don't understand what you mean here
6 don't understand what you mean by Feds resume is better than Feds resume
7. But what Djokovic does if he wins Tommorow is greater than anything Federer has ever done .....beating the greatest all time clay court player in his own house.
8. Sure we can make a bet. I guarantee you that If joker wins Tommorow Cash & wilander will crown joker as the goat.
Anyway:
1- I do not agree that all that matters is the number of slams you win.
2- Feds slam over soderling is less worthy because Nadal actually beat Federer at the AO so he already proved himself. Federer on the other hand has never beaten nadal on clay at slam or anything other than grass for that matter
3- Djokovic winning 4 in a row is far more monumental than 16 slams beating players of lower quality than nadal or joker. By the way I think nadal and joker are both better than fed.
4- what are you talking about ? Nadal is 6-2 in slams against fed. I believe joker is 2-1 .
5- don't understand what you mean here
6 don't understand what you mean by Feds resume is better than Feds resume
7. But what Djokovic does if he wins Tommorow is greater than anything Federer has ever done .....beating the greatest all time clay court player in his own house.
8. Sure we can make a bet. I guarantee you that If joker wins Tommorow Cash & wilander will crown joker as the goat.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Funny you should say that....
Yesterday during the sharapova match they interviewed laver who said that the competition today is the toughest in history.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
1. But it counts for more than you're giving it. If Djokovic wins tomorrow but never wins again, he shouldn't be considered above Federer. only an imbecile would do that, because the rest of his career isn't even close to Federer's yet.
2. So what? Nadal is not the barometer of all tennis victories for all time, Federer beat who he had to beat. Nadal wasn't good enough to make it to the finals, just like he didn't have to beat prime Fed in australia or the US Open. It goes both ways, or neither. Make your choice.
3. The 4 in a row is impressive, but the fact is that it doesn't outright eclipse Federer's 16 majors. No reasonable expert would say that. And no, Pat 'Mirka-told-me-to-stop-gossiping-so-I-hate-Federer' Cash doesn't count.
4. Wow, you posted Federer's records against Nadal in slams...hmm. Btw, Federer's slam record against Djokovic is 5-4. Nice try, though. Plain and simple, Federer beat who he needed to beat to win 16 majors. Nadal hasn't done so, Djokovic hasn't done so. Stop being so butthurt about it.
5. Ah, it's ok. You brought up 16 slams. Federer has 16, Nadal 10, Djokovic currently at 5. Federer's case for GOAT is better than either of them, at the moment.. though Nadal's is bolstered somewhat by his gold medal and h2h.. but the fact is, that Nadal hasn't matched Federer's records, and Djokovic hasn't come even REMOTELY close.
6. I meant Federer's claycourt resume in comparison to Sampras'.. that Federer's is much better.
7. I disagree. Federer's 16 majors still count for more than winning a single match against Nadal at the French. Will it bolster his career and send him significantly higher on the 'greatest' charts? Yes, for sure. But not above Federer, not yet. Maybe in time he will, and I will be cool with it, because regardless of Djokovic's and Nadal's careers, Federer is still among the greats, no matter what they do. He's already won 16 majors, those can't be taken away, as much as you wish, hope, and pray they could.
8. See above post about Butthurt Cash and Bitter Trollander. I don't care what they have to say, they've never been Federer enthusiasts, so why would I expect anything other than crying about him?
If I see widespread claims of Djokovic being the GOAT, then that's a different story. But I won't see that tomorrow. I know that for sure.'
Dont make me type this up in red so you can more easily see it.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Sound bites count for universal truths now? Of course Laver said that. He still considers Federer one of the greatest.. as he's said multiple times.
The Dark Knight
Legend
And he is right .....Federer is clearly one of the greatest.
Why do so many people think the calendar slam or 4 in a row is the only thing that matters. Yes Djokovic is playing outstanding, but he's got a long ways to go before getting put into that category.
It would mean a lot, but there are way to many other things that also go into being the GOAT, and Djokovic has barely scratched the surface of that one. He'll make a nice dent in it if he wins tomorrow, but he's got so much more to do.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
I'm perfectly fine with Novak overtaking Federer if he proves himself by winning 12 more slams
The Dark Knight
Legend
Cup......
I really think you make good points.....but these 8 part responses are killing me bro.
Can you shorten them up?
I really think you make good points.....but these 8 part responses are killing me bro.
Can you shorten them up?
The Dark Knight
Legend
Well every judge and jury is different.....
You can rule that way....personally if joker wins tomorrow then he is the goat in my opinion.
I do however respect yours.
BigServer1
Legend
It's official. You started watching tennis 12 months ago.
Federer d. Djokovic - 2007 AO, 2007 USO, 2008 USO, 2009 USO 2011 RG
Djokovic d. Federer - 2008 AO, 2010 USO, 2011 AO, 2011 USO, 2012 RG
Seriously. You thought they've played THREE times in Majors? Try nine. Can you at least google this stuff before you make an ass of yourself online?
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
DragonBlaze
Hall of Fame
You forgot 2011 AO.
Don't know why you are bothering to reply though, it's pointless :lol:
BigServer1
Legend
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you clearly have no grasp on the (recent) history of this sport?
You spout off opinions like you know what you're talking about, saying things like "Djokovic and Nadal are greater than Federer ever was", yet you can't remember Federer and Djokovic playing in Majors in 2007-2010. In another thread, you said "7>16", which implied that if Djokovic wins the French Open, he'll have 7 Majors. Again, false, he'd have 6.
You can't expect anyone to take you seriously when you consistently show that you have no clue what you're talking about. Learn a little bit about the history of the game before you make 400 more threads about the same topic.
The Dark Knight
Legend
What's pointless is dealing with people who are so blindly in love that they actually picked fed to win the fo. :shock:
BigServer1
Legend
Ugh you're right. They're 5-5 in Majors.
BigServer1
Legend
Who in their right mind picked him to win the FO? I thought we'd have a Djoker/Nadal final, and that's exactly what we got.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
I don't think anyone is or should be taking him seriously. Anyone who thinks 11>16 no matter the context is someone I'd not want to deal with.
BigServer1
Legend
Well sure. That goes without saying. Yet I keep posting, like an idiot...
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Mhm. Lacking tennis knowledge... I see. It makes sense
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
This is absurd. Djokovic winning four in a row (if it happens) would be more impressive than any single grand slam streak or any single season that Federer had. But it's still only four slams. To win sixteen slams one needs to maintain slam-winning form for at the very minimum four years - or eight years in Federer's case. Djokovic could potentially have a two-year span better than anything Federer had, but that won't necessarily make him better overall.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Hey, OP, what were you saying (you know, before you made the other thread when you realized how wrong you were)?
The Dark Knight
Legend
Just to lazy to scroll. Paste it and I'll reply.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Don't know what you are referring to? Please explain.
