View Single Post
Old 12-03-2012, 10:27 AM   #98
pc1
Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pc1 View Post
You have it reverse actually. Sampras won 14 in 52 and Federer has won 17 in 54. Didn't you get that info from me?

But Sampras does have some arguments for GOAT. He was number one six years in a row and he did win the Italian Open on clay. So he was somewhat of a force on clay. Overall I don't think he's logically a name you should use with the top few of the GOAT candidates list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
Ok, I adjusted my post.



Yes his 6 years #1 fabulous, but that's only one stat. Fed has the record weeks #1, and fans have said wks at #1 is more telling than year end #1. He also had 237 straight weeks. So if we specificially compare ranking stats only, Fed is still more impressive.

It depends how you define "a force". I don't think winning just 1 MS on clay in an entire career is a force, because you can include any player with 1 MS is a force on that surface.

The last sentence I can accept.


I have a question for you. You are throwing out some stats but what about the players that may have better stats than Federer like Bill Tilden for example. Below is the info on Tilden and Federer taken from a thread I started a few months ago. The information on Federer is should be correct since I edited it a few minutes ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pc1 View Post
There has been a thread in which Jimmy Connors' career is being compared to Roger Federer's. All fine and dandy. Many assumed Federer wins by a Slam Dunk and with all the acclaim Federer gets today I can understand why. And frankly Federer does have the accomplishments to be compared with anyone in tennis history. But still I would prefer cold facts then people writing Federer is superior to player A on hard courts, clay courts, blue clay, grass courts and indoor courts. I've seen comments in the other thread stating Federer was superior to Connors on most surfaces and yet by some incredible magic Mr. Connors has a slightly higher winning percentage for his career. So to me the comments don't work.

Federer may very well be superior to Connors but Connors' career accomplishments are fantastic and if you look carefully it doesn't seem to me at least that it's all that clear.

Here's a question I'll ask--Whose career is more impressive, Bill Tilden's or Roger Federer? The reason I'm mentioning this is to point out that we can state opinions that one or another is the de facto GOAT but we also have to examine the information before we accept the judgment. I used to think Don Budge was by everything I've read, virtually unbeatable. I was surprised when he wasn't close to virtually unbeatable. He was excellent but I realized many of the so called information I read on Budge was just plain wrong. So I reevaluated my opinion on Budge due to the information. So in comparing Federer and Tilden I want everyone to examine and give information on both players. Opinion of course is welcome but hopefully it can be backed with logic. I don't need stuff like Federer's backhand always hit winners and is much better than Djokovic's. None of this about the competition because that can't be controlled. Some may say Tilden's competition was bad and some may say Federer's was bad. We'll assume it's equal. So on accomplishments and just objectively evaluating the career, which career is better. No nonsense about the physical nature being tougher today because any era that complains about blue clay isn't that tough.

I also don't want to hear that the game is different today because I think Tilden at 6'2" tall and around 160 to 170 lbs would have adapted and learned. It can be reversed also to see if Federer can adapt to the conditions of the 1920's. Just leave this out. No one can logically prove anything here. It will go on and on forever and it'll be very annoying to read.

Some stats of Tilden versus Federer. Some of this is estimates I've gotten from some tennis experts who have much of the information.

Total tournaments won
Tilden-161-est.
Federer-76

Total majors won (including Pro Majors)
Tilden-14. Tilden won 15 majors if you include the World Hard Court that Tilden won that was really the major clay court championship. The French was not open to foreigners like Tilden.
Federer-17
We have to take into account that airplane travel was not available during Tilden's time so Big Bill did not go overseas that often. It would take many weeks to travel to England, France or Australian. In his prime Tilden may have won several Grand Slams considering how unbeatable he was.

Percentage of majors won
Tilden-14/42=.333
Federer-17/54=.315

Lifetime winning percentage
Tilden-.660-est
Federer-.816
Note-Tilden, according to Bud Collins' book won from 1912 to 1930 in his amateur career (which essentially was the top level because he faced all the top competition) won 138 of 192 tournaments, lost 28 finals with a 907-62 match record. The winning percentage was .936! Tilden turn pro in the early 1930's and kept playing. The losses he had as an older player lowed his career winning percentage. He lost a good percentage on one night stands to players like Don Budge, Fred Perry, Ellsworth Vines. For example he lost to Budge with a probable score of 7-46-1. He lost to Vines by 27-46. He played both of these tours in his early to late forties. He lost regularly to Fred Perry (at least according to Perry) and he even played long enough to lose to Pancho Gonzalez!

Grand Slams won
Tilden-0
Federer-0

Percentage of tournaments won
Tilden-.520-est.
Federer-.288

Winning percentage in best five years
Tilden-.980-est.
Federer-.907

Look at the information and discuss.

Federer is acclaimed by many to be the GOAT today. Tilden was named in a poll in the late 1960's to be the GOAT at that point.

One thing I can say that is a fact. Roger Federer is currently the greatest blue clay player of all time. There can be no argument there, he just is and to argue against that would be wrong. And Serena Willilams is also currently the greatest female blue clay player of all time. They have proven themselves unbeatable on blue clay.
Edit-Corrected the information on Federer. It should be up to date as of December 3, 2012.

So all of you. Please discuss. Do you go by simple accomplishments and stats or do you decide otherwise? I believe Tilden would have done extremely well today. He was a gifted athlete and perhaps even more than that he was a great tennis analyst and studied the game, always trying to improve.

Last edited by pc1 : 12-03-2012 at 10:49 AM.
pc1 is offline   Reply With Quote