View Single Post
Old 11-14-2012, 01:23 PM   #76
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the service box - the business end
Posts: 3,641

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near View Post
Bold - unfortunately and probably irrevocably incorrect.

As for the rest of the post, it doesn't get at the heart of why option 2 is so profoundly superior to option 1. The perception of the importance of Majors is overinflated to the extent where it has become a black and white judgement. When Federer got to 15 Majors, the amount of talk about him being certainly better than Sampras 'because he has 1 more Major' was virtually unintelligible. Not everybody was of this view though and enough people would point out that it was the addition of the RG title among other things that set Roger a little bit apart from Pete.

19 > 18 would certainly be true in the context of tennis achievements if it was the singular aspect of tennis achievements... except that it isn't, not even close. Logic is good.
It is not the singular aspect of the tennis achievements, but it is the most important. I would give preference to the most important aspect of someone's career, than to the filling.

Since you are so fond of "other" achievements, maybe you would be better off thinking about what would mean, if Federer wins two more Majors while the current crop of top players is in their prime. To me, that is much more significant, than a H2H with one player (be it Nadal).

By the way, intangibles are slippery surface. It is always better to step on something solid. Not that it matters, because only tennis nuts are busy with counting and estimating someone's career. There is no need to prove someone right or wrong.

I didn't give my opinion on the subject, beacuse i want to engage myself in endless discussions, but because I wanted to share my view on the subject, what would Federer choose, from a cultural and personal point of view (being from the same culture and all). I feel, that most of the people, who choose the OG and H2H are looking that matter from a rather depersonalized point of view (history, observers etc.). Federer is not indifferent , when it comes to records, but he is much more practical than many people here think.

The bolded part is correct. I do not doubt your is just that you chose the wrong examples to make your point.
Crisstti:It's not cheating (arguable at best), it's merely breaking the rules./ Vero:Armstrong lacks the arrogance.
Tennis_Hands is offline   Reply With Quote