Originally Posted by tennisbuck
It doesn't make sense? what has he done that federer hasn't? If someone argues that Fed isn't the GOAT and Laver is i have no problem with that. But how could it be Pete?
it's a logic and facts allergic group that often changes goal posts to keep Pete in the GOAT discussion, though as of last Wimbledon, it would appear that they've run out of space to rearrange the goal post:
- when you point out Pete's relatively poor win/loss ratio for his best years, the response is "he only cared about slams"
- when you point out that as of wimby 2009, Pete is no longer the slam leader, the response is "ah, but slams aren't everything. you have to look at competition"
- when you point out that the supposed stronger era that Pete played in consisted of former over-the-hill greats, and a main "rival" who was doing meth during Pete's prime, the response usually consists of either silence or an unsubstantiated "but.. but... they're better than Federer's opponents"
- when you point out the career slam, the usual response is "homogenized conditions made it possible".
- when you point out that if conditions now are homogeneous (all slams playing closer to clay), then Pete would stand no chance in today's conditions, usual response is "but great players adapt"
- when you point out that Pete never adapted to clay during his heyday, the response is usually silence..
the latest goal post is "h2h" against your "main rival". apparently, Federer lacks in it. what I hear them say is that if Federer had put together Sampras-esque clay numbers, he would have a h2h lead over Nadal (not sure why Nadal, who is 5 yrs his junior, is his "main" rival -- he has played 20+ matches against a few of his rivals who were of the same age).