View Single Post
Old 11-11-2012, 08:21 AM   #63
zagor
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Weak era
Posts: 25,802
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
People aren't really going to remember when Federer won his slams, though. Can you name all of Sampras's slams off the top of your head?
Yes, actually:

1990-USO
1993- USO and Wimbledon
1994- AO and Wimbledon
1995- USO and Wimbledon
1996-USO
1997- AO and Wimbledon
1998-2000-Wimbledon
2001- zero
2002- USO

However that wasn't exactly my point, slams are harder and harder to win as a player ages, it's not rocket science. Every additional slam Fed wins from now is more hyped, treated as a small miracle etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
In 40 years, when players are playing into their 40s regularly, more than one player will pass Federer's slam count, be it 18 or 19.
Pure guesswork.

Players regularly playing into their 40s is particulary funny.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
That's because it hasn't been around very long. Come talk to me in 40 years.
I could come talk to you in 50 years years, it still won't change the fact that a significant number of tennis greats couldn't even participate in the Olympics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
And the majority of the tennis greats didn't give a rat's *** about the Australian Open back in the day, either.
Maybe but atleast they weren't completely barred from entering it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
I'm a Federer fan, actually.
Sell that to someone else, I've seen enough for your BS to know that you couldn't possibly be further from being a Fed fan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
I'm just stating my opinion on which would be better for Federer's legacy.
No, you're obsessing over cracks in Fed's legacy and overblowing them to ridiculous degree, if Fed had a SOG you wouldn't give a rat's *** about it, it would lose the special appeal it holds for you and your ilk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
In terms of ranking the greats, it does.
No, it simply doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Andre Agassi has a permanent place in the pantheon of tennis greats thanks to his career golden slam.
Thanks to his career slam (among other accomplishments), not golden career slam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Take away the Olympics gold and it loses some of its shine.
No, it's almost negligible, Agassi's position among all time greats wouldn't change to any significant degree even if he never won a SOG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Take away the French Open and it loses all of its shine - his career becomes real a disappointment given his potential.
Not all of its shine but yes without FO (and thus career slam) Agassi's career would be seen as less spectacular no doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
Winning all of the biggest events is what makes a complete career.
Yes, Fed did win FO in 2009.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
The Olympics have gained a major prestige in tennis over the last 8 years...
Actually, better assumption would be 4 years, 8 years ago Nicholas Massu won it, that hardly increased it's prestige (quite the opposite actually).

Problem is, tennis history spans far beyond the last 4 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
and they'll continue to do so as time passes.
Guesswork again, maybe, maybe not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
When looking back on Federer's career, it'll be noteworthy that he never won the gold medal in singles.
Nope, Fed winning SOG would have been a bonus to his career, it doesn't diminish his legacy in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
And if Federer struggled as much as Sampras on clay, all of a sudden, his argument for GOAT is an intense debate for everyone. As of right now, only the Sampras ***** are really trying to claim Sampras > Federer.
If, if, if...

Fact is he didn't, even if he never won the title, 5 FO finals blow away one single SF out of the water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
That's right - the weaker aspects of Federer/Sampras's careers are what make the difference.
The whole of Fed's career is what makes the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
If they were even in those weaker parts, the debate is no longer one-sided in Federer's favor. In fact, it's a dead heat.
Again, if, if, if.

According to most people, Fed is clearly better than Sampras on slow HC and clay while roughly equal on fast HC and grass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
ISampras has 8 US Open finals and 5 titles to Federer's 6 and 5. Federer has 8 Wimbledon finals and 7 titles to Sampras's 7 and 7. Same number of faster major slam totals, but Sampras has one more final. So I give Sampras a very slight edge to this point.
Except that Fed winning 5 USOs and 5 Wimbledons in a row is more than enough to offset one measly additional slam final.

Aren't Sampras fans constantly going about Pete's 6 years end #1 in a row? I don't remember them merely saying that Sampras has one more year end #1 than Fed.

Last edited by zagor : 11-11-2012 at 09:53 AM.
zagor is offline   Reply With Quote