Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
most Australian Opens
most U.S Opens
most French Opens (not even top 20 in that probably as probably atleast that many have more than 1 French Open)
most years as the #1 player (people say Sampras has the most, but in reality the most would be Gonzales or Laver, there was just no computer rankings then, either way it isnt Federer)
best year W-L record
longest winning streak
A single Calendar or Non Calendar Grand Slam
most tournament wins
most tournament wins in a year
No Davis Cup title
Quite a large number actually. Then even ones he holds he often shares (eg- most Wimbledons, most Masters), and others he basically only holds due to the format of the game as we know it only starting up 40 years ago (eg- most slams, Gonzales and Rosewall would both have many more had it been Open tennis then like today). As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one.
It is remarkable how awful your arguments are. Granted, everyone has an opinion, but given that you have spent so much time on these forums, one would expect for you to have learned.
Let's begin to reconstruct this awful argument into something.
First, pure numbers (ie how many Slams one has won) do not determine "greatness" or GOATness.
What defines Nadal so well as a clay-courter for example, is certainly (and it will never be) not how many Roland Garros titles he has won. Often he looks short of confidence on clay, faces players who are more tactically astute and can do more on clay than he can, I recall him facing torture on the first 30 minutes of the French Open 2011 final.
What defines him as being the GOAT on clay is how he plays on the surface, how he uses his body, his style of play, how he breaks his opponent down.
That "torture" turned to Nadal being more aggressive and him digging deep and winning a tough match before breaking Federer's concentration and slipping an easy fourth set.
That is how his GOATness is defined on clay - how he breaks players who enter with super tactics.
So already the first 7/8 lines of your argument have gone. A good beginning. And given that Federer has the most match wins in AO/UO (or one of them) and such other statistics can be found, it is an awful argument. I hope you read this again and again until you get it through to your brain; what you have said is not
an argument for Federer not being the GOAT. It is poor logic and an example of how not having understanding of a specific topic.
"The ones he holds are shared by others" : Yes, by others in different generations. Some of those generations did not have seven rounds for Majors, some had much less (and some I recall, had just one match). With different equipment, different tactics and such huge globalisation and much more competitors now, it is hard to assess statistical equivalence (ie, 5 now is equal to 5 back then). Laver, Borg, etc, have all said how Federer is better than them and the GOAT of all time.
What can we deduce from this?
When you make statements about others having better (or equal records) than Federer, take a look at those exact players themselves, who have achieved those records and have played. Take a look at what they have said. They all say the same; Federer is the best and better than them.
Finally, we clean up by looking what your last part is really
saying. And when you look at back it, you will realise how stupid it is. Specifically, I will quote:
"As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one."
He is not the "Michael Phelps" of tennis, he is the Roger Federer of tennis.
Similarly, Michael Phelps is not the "Roger Federer" of swimming, by the same argument.
The quoted is related to the following statements/questions
* Is Michael Phelps the sole definition of GOATness in a sport?
* Swimming and tennis are similar in how athletes are skilled, therefore we can compare the skills of athletes of totally different sports.
* You cannot object to Federer being the GOAT of tennis - first you must compare him to someone superb in a different sport, and see if Federer objectively, somehow by comparing, passes the tests that Phelps has passed in swimming.
More can be involved and I can make it more silly. Simply put, GOATness is an abstraction, the second our silly minds start putting a concrete example (which is bias, as we do not want a different concrete example) to be associated to this specific abstractness, we then cannot ever see a different example being that abstraction.
In simple talk; because Phelps is the GOAT of swimming in my mind, Federer cannot be the GOAT of tennis, he must first pass what Phelps has done in swimming in a somehow comparable way to tennis.
It is just silly; read and learn. I have never seen such an awful argument.
EDIT: I rarely post, I just had to explain and respond to such an imbecilic post.