View Single Post
Old 01-04-2013, 06:11 AM   #34
abmk's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S
Posts: 15,582

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
Illogical. The anti-Laver argument is based on the false surface theory; Laver was on the same playing field as his contemporaries, thus winning goes back to the talent of the man playing. Laver was that man far and above the rest. You also conveniently ignored the Graf situation--she won her Grand Slam in the era of 4 different surfaces, so are you going to say she had an advantage on all four? For your sake, you should not, as all of her opponents were playing on the same surfaces. The difference is in the overwhelming talent of the GS winner--surface does not matter.
again, you are thick if you think talent is the only thing that matters .. of course one has to be darn talented to win the GS, but a combination of other factors are also important including the surfaces and a bit of luck I said, give nadal and borg four slams on clay and they'd be wiping the fields clean for several years at their peaks ... sampras would be a near nobody as far as all time greatness goes in that case ....

coming back to graf, great great feat, no doubt, but many still regard navratilova above her ...

very few regard court above navratilova ...

and much fewer , if any, regard budge as better than federer

its the entire body of work that matters, not just the GS

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
That's your woefully incorrect fan desire--not recognized history. You have no explanation (or flat out dodge) why players such as Laver and Graf are considered the GOAT over the course of decades--and it has nothing to do with majors count, either.

Winning the Grand Slam is concentrated dominance at the sport's biggest events--the majors. Federer, Hingis, Wilander and Serena all won three in a season, but none were good enough to show supreme dominance over the season's majors. Try and try again, but you will never be able to spin this into an advantage for Federer.

He did not have what it takes to win the Grand Slam in his so-named "prime," and considering his age at present, it is unlikely he ever reach the level required to do it moving forward.
that is just again you being downright thick ..... dominance is dominance over the field over an entire year ...... again you do not understand because you are obsessed with the calendar GS and your favourite serena has negligible amount of titles overall even when compared to the other modern great players ....

the parameters of greatness in tennis change quite a bit with time ......

in the early years, Davis Cup was perhaps the most important event ... at that time, I doubt if the term grand slam was used in tennis .... only probably came into the picture in the 30s ......

then the best players were in the pros and pro majors held more significance than the amateur majors and h2h battles were of high significance

If the calendar GS were the only important thing in history the likes of vines, gonzales, rosewall, hoad etc. wouldn't have joined the pros

then with the open era, the calendar GS assumed more importance ..... then slowly towards the end of lendl era till now, the no of majors has become a much more important parameter ........ pretty sure borg didn't care about inflating his no of majors by going to Australia in his prime years ....
now Davis Cup is of much less importance ......

the greatness of players should be evaluated on multiple parameters based on the importance of the events at those times .....

Last edited by abmk; 01-04-2013 at 07:38 AM.
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote