Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by DoubleDeuce, Jul 14, 2012.
The thread title is incorrect. That' s not the case the posted article makes, as per my quote above.
Regardless. There is no way to compare in absolutes but if it's money earned or majors won Federer is not the greatest. Useless article, useless thread (3rd on the subject after Wimbledon final).
Useless post, cant even comprehend the differences.
I don't think it has made his popularity grow.
But If you are against the treatment of a person who has a hormonal deficiency and would have ended up as a very small person I have nothing to argue with you about.
It's obviously about accomplishments and Federer's accomplishments in tennis, when you consider "trophies", consistency and longevity in the sport, are simply greater than those of Woods and Nicklaus.
They are greater to you because you identify with tennis much more strongly. Not an objective view.
I would never include Woods in the list of top athletes. He did make golf a bigger sport and won so much but golf remains a fairly elite sport only practiced by so many people.
How do you identify with wheelchair tennis or squash then? since you mentioned the records over Federer?
Yes I agree. When you're faced with facts you cannot refute denial is the best option. There are numerous pro sports where athletes achieved dominance far greater than Federer's. If you cannot comprehend that then there's little hope more facts will help.
I'm an analyst and I don't have a difficulty identifying an outstanding performance over a period of time.
Did you even bother to read the article? And the case has also been made in that other ESPN article. There's nothing subjective about the stats presented. Woods might have had a case when he had 12 majors to Federer's 10 but not anymore. Federer not only has more slams but has also shown far more consistency throughout his career. Nicklaus has 18 slams but it took him 24 years to achieve that.
Classic example of a spin post.
Make it about dominance, find more domination, prove your point. So simplistic it makes you laugh. Jahangir khan is not even in the discussion of greatest atheletes in history, and certainly no wheelchair. It's just interesting how people dig out names to prove a point that's not even close to what's being discussed.
Well good to have an analyst here, we can certainly use your insights here. Maybe when you graduate from tt talk you can start analysing for ESPN. You can also use our feedback to find out how well you are doing.
I bet you Analyst is gathering data...stay tuned.
The article is made for the likes of you, I would never waste my time reading that drivel. Federer is playing tennis and Jack was playing golf. If a comparison has to be drawn then there are other athletes more dominant in their sports (as I grow tired of saying). If Federer wins 2 more Slams he can say he is one up on old Jack. But until then he isn't (again if you get into the sensationalist activity of comparing cross-sport).
DoubleDuce mate, I think I've said enough. You have people (women's high jump for example) who have won more than 140 competitions in a row. I don't mind your ignorance, but please don't insinuate that when we are saying a tennis player is the greatest pro athlete of all, it is you who must choose who he is compared with.
It is not me who chooses who he is compared with, but I make the case that it is the popularity of a sport that makes it comparable to tennis. A sport like squash takes much less space than a tennis court, yet there is more tennis courts around where I live than there is squash players. That makes a domination by the likes of jahangir khan much easier. Same goes with your wheelchair numbers.
Mr. Russel, you are playing a numbers game where it's not about numbers only. When you consider the popularity and the level of competition in any of these sports you mentioned and yet look at the numbers only then its also ingnorance in your part.
I don't think it makes sense to rank sportsmen for so many different disciplines in sports. At best we can make a list of a few dozen of the greatest athletes.
Your discrimination goes out the window of relevance with one look at the framework of the debate. "Of ALL". That's all there is to it. If the debate did not say greatest of ALL I wouldn't mention the possible deficiencies of such a claim.
You don't want to compare but you still argue that Nicklaus is greater than Federer. And you conveniently base your opinion on slams only while ignoring other important stats pertaining to consistency. Sorry mate, but you don't get to choose which stat is convenient for you to argue your point and reject everything else as subjective or "drivel". It just doesn't work that way... That's silly anti-debating 101.
I said if I have to compare I would say Nicklaus is the greater of the two. It's simple really. To win one Slam Federer has to defeat 7 people. To win one Major Jack had to beat what 60? 70? 80? people over 4 days. Can't compare but it sure looks harder in golf.
I agree. One extra point on Phelps. Swimming per se is right down near the bottom of the scale in terms of overall skills required to be great. It's one of the ultimate rote-learning, brute repetition sports.
I wouldn't consider Phelps to be in the league of Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Woods, Gretzky, Jordan, Pele etc etc even if he went a whole Olympic cycle without losing a single race. What he does is truly amazing nonetheless but swimming is nothing compared to the competitive environment and overall set of skills required to be the best that tennis has.
I agree. While Jack has one more major than Fed, but look at how many years he had to play to win all of those majors while fed won 17 before his 31th birthday. With golf a player can compete in his 60s but for tennis you're lucky to win a major once you hit 30. If Jack was as dominant as Fed, he should have won 40 majors.
there is no best athlete of all sports.
Yes there is. MIchael Phelps. It will be hundreds of years before anyone does things in any sport that he has done. He is literally from another planet.
His feet are like flippers, he's a physical freak. What's amazing about Roger is that he's the GOAT with a protruding belly, receding hairline and puny left arm.
meh..olympic athletes I take with a grain of salt nowadays.
I dont want to be burned in 10 years when he wear USADA break another doping scandal.
That is true. However I am of the belief the majority of pro and amateur athletes are heavily doped so I dont even really care if he is or not (ps- why would pro athletes especialy basketball, baseball, football, players be less likely than Olympic athletes, if anything they are even more). Some even more than others of course, I doubt there is even a single rider in the Tour de France for awhile now not doped up to the eyeballs, which is why I feel sorry for Lance, as he kicked the others butts doing everything the rest were doing and yet he is the target especialy by the jealous and jaded.
Jahangir is very much in that discussion... The only reason why some people discard him is that they don't know the sport because it is less marketable than tennis. Do you seriously think that given the opportunity, many athletes would have been able to emulate 555 wins in a row? To me Federer is very close to Jahangir and Jansher Khan in terms of achievements, and he's in fact the Jansher Khan of tennis.
A key reason I don't consider the achievements of the Khans in the same light as Federer's for example is that in the 1980s as few as 10 squash players globally played the sport full time.
Also, the vast majority of the tournaments back in those days required 3 or 4 wins to take out the title - with most early round matches taking in the region of 45 minutes. The curve of ability in the field was more akin to Federer getting to play against the ball-kids for the first 3 rounds of every major tournament. It was really little more than a warm-up for those guys.
I'm not saying they weren't astonishing athletes or one in a million talents but the fact is squash was only played at any remotely serious level by barely 5 or 6 countries until well into the 1990s (England, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Egypt etc).
As a demonstration of how small the professional body was in squash - I was taught maths at high school by the guy who was ranked in the 20s in the world in the period the Khan's dominated. He worked as a teacher full time and coached part time in order to be able to go to squash tournaments like the British Open.
No he doesn't. Since when does a golfer play against one opponent over the course of a major? And, if you really want to spout out this doo-doo, the winner of a major in tennis has to out play well over 100, and has to carry his own racquet.
Jeez, where do you people even come up with these arguments, as if golf is even a sport.
They have this wonderful contraption called a scorebord, which illustrates how each player's performance measures up against that of everyone else. To win the whole shabang your performance must beat that of everyone else, not just of one person at a time. As far as golf being a sport, I'll leave the schooling to others.
Nadal, number one in h2h of top 4, 8-3 in slams was federer
I hope you are enjoying your spin Mr. Russel, because I am.
Upsets in Golf are as rare of those in Tennis. That wonderful contrapion can illustrate 500 more players and the reulsts would be the same. Yet in tennis because of one match played one time there is a greater chance of an upset, which we saw happen two weeks ago by a 100th ranked palyer.
I dont mind your ignorance when you equal athletism required to play tennis vs golf or suash, but that wonderful scoreboard is full names who drive golf carts around the grass while tennis players average 5 hrs a day work out when they are not playing.
This right there sums up your worth as a contributor on these boards. Squash to tennis is like decathlon to chess.
Not that I want to get into a squash debate but Jahangir Khan's 555 match winning streak is by far the greatest streak in sports history. During the streak he also entered 13 North American hard ball tournaments made all 13 finals and won 12 of them.
Federer's 2004-2007 performance is the closest I've seen another athlete get to it, with only 26 defeats and around 323 victories over 4 years.
Well thanks for pointing out my worht as a contributor, I wonder what that make yours.
" decathlon to chess" ? Lets not make it too romantic Mr. Russel, you stick to that " analyst" role for now. Squash is known to be one of the safest games to play because of least number of injuries reported relative to other sports such as tennis. Way less shoulder and knee injuries, which should tell you about the difference in stress and also the fintenss required to play the two games.
I can see you are in the right place to practice your writing because the arrogance in your posts can really benefit from it.
Edberg mate, do you realize who that is you responded to? It's our dear old friend who used to go by the initials of GS back in the day
A golfer plays against the course and hopes his score is better than other players. He is not playing against an opponent, who could alter his performance by playing defense or offense against him.
I really don't know if you follow Cricket or not. I doubt whether any player has dominated any sport the way Sir Don Bradman has dominated Cricket. He ended his career with a staggering average of 99.94 in Test cricket while the next best was around 60.. It's mind blowing..
I suppose you'd argue a snooker player plays against the table then? The fact is the player's performance must exceed that of everyone else not just of one person. So you could argue if some unseeded player is hot one day those seeded players not drawn to face him are fortunate as if there was a scoring system like in golf he would knock them all out.
Unlike you I've played the sports you are talking about and I can tell you squash requires extreme conditioning and responsiveness, the second being a requisite only in doubles tennis and even there not even close. Your report of injuries has more to do with the highly publicised way (higher ranked) tennis players' injuries are announced to the public. Obviously a sport with a smaller global audience will seem to someone (who hasn't a clue what squash is going by earlier remarks) to not cause injuries.
The elephant in the room is that, through most of his career so far, Federer has only had 1 championship caliber rival, who has a winning record over him by a wide margin. Many argue that that is because he and Nadal are just so great, no one else can compete in their era. But, it can just as easily be argued that there has been a dearth of players with championship level hearts, minds and spirits. It certainly is not the case that Federer's and Nadal's shotmaking is that much better than everyone else's. It's that they are the only 2 (now 3), who seem to have the competitiveness to play their best when needed to win the major events. The rest crumble under the weight of the pressure of being a champion because they just don't believe they are champions. This latest performance by Andy Murray is just one example among many supporting that premise. Murray found a way to loose, and Federer found a way to win. That's what happens when a genuine competitor plays one who competes more with himself than his opponent.
PS: As for "athleticism," IMO, Federer is arguably as great an athlete as anyone in the World today. Athleticism includes attributes such as balance, timing, coordination and eye-hand coordination. It's not measured only by how fast you can run, or how high you can jump.
What a disservice to Federer to compare him to golfers.
jeff gordans better
It's strange because in the 1990s, one felt that a lot of players believed that they could be champions if things just clicked for them during the fortnight, even players ranked outside the top 10 or top 20. Sampras was the best player for most of the 1990s, but few feared him or were in awe of him like today's players seem to be about the top players.
Golf is one of the few sports, if not the only sport, that requires more skill to play than tennis.
I have nothing against you DoubleDeuce (in fact I find that I often agree with your posts), but you're wrong this time concerning squash. The intensity of professional squash is probably unmatched by any sport, except perhaps badminton. The calorie expense for pro squash is around 2000-3000 an hour... Heck, it's about 1000 calories/hour for intermediate players! I've played both squash and tennis at a 5.0-5.5 level and there's simply no comparison.
Indeed, golf is probably the only sport that is even more technical than tennis.
Formula 1 is more technical than either.
If we're talking about all time great athletes, what about guys like Walter Payton, Dan Gable, Deion Sanders, Willie Mays.
Separate names with a comma.