What is the definition of G.O.A.T

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

Well, Laver has 3...

and tennis is much more than just athletic bodies and well trained machines...or at least that is the way I look at it.I am not interested in another way to llok at it.

Tennis today is skills and athleticism. Back then it was just skills. We might enjoy skills more but athleticism is very important to winning matches, as Nadal and Djokovic are proving.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Well, Laver has 3...

and tennis is much more than just athletic bodies and well trained machines...or at least that is the way I look at it.I am not interested in another way to llok at it.

No, you're revising history. Laver has 2(1962 & 1969). People don't care much about the 1962 since it was from the amateur. 1969 was still 3 grass and 1 clay.

Athletic and well trained may not be important in the 60s, but today if you lacks any discipline, forget it, you ain't going to be a great champion.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Tennis today is skills and athleticism. Back then it was just skills. We might enjoy skills more but athleticism is very important to winning matches, as Nadal and Djokovic are proving.

You are right.And while some guys like Laver,Gonzales,Hoad and Newcombe were just as much atheltic as any current player, skill was much more rewarded, just the oppoiste than today.federer is the only guy that mixes up both things in the right way, and if you gave him a wooden racket and a good volley, he would fit perfectly well in the 80´s.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

You are right.And while some guys like Laver,Gonzales,Hoad and Newcombe were just as much atheltic as any current player, skill was much more rewarded, just the oppoiste than today.federer is the only guy that mixes up both things in the right way, and if you gave him a wooden racket and a good volley, he would fit perfectly well in the 80´s.

No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

No, you're revising history. Laver has 2(1962 & 1969). People don't care much about the 1962 since it was from the amateur. 1969 was still 3 grass and 1 clay.

Athletic and well trained may not be important in the 60s, but today if you lacks any discipline, forget it, you ain't going to be a great champion.

In 67 won the Pro Slam, against some of the greatest ever tennis players.

I agree that discipline and training is basic, but so was in Laver´s time when the top players were clearly fit ( or at least the majority of them).Guys like Emerson and Kodes were great natural athletes, as a few others.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

I don´t dipute the top players are very well trained.You just need to look at Nadal,Djokovic,Murray or Ferrer.Federer is also a natural athlete but is the closest one to the 70´s or 80´s, although the monotony of today´s game has taken a lot of his potential brightness.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kiki

I don´t dipute the top players are very well trained.You just need to look at Nadal,Djokovic,Murray or Ferrer.Federer is also a natural athlete but is the closest one to the 70´s or 80´s, although the monotony of today´s game has taken a lot of his potential brightness.

Federer is a great athlete in Tennis terms. What he lacks in raw athleticism he makes up for with heavenly anticipation and remarkable footwork. And, in his prime, he had a lot of stamina and endurance as well.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

In 67 won the Pro Slam, against some of the greatest ever tennis players.

I agree that discipline and training is basic, but so was in Laver´s time when the top players were clearly fit ( or at least the majority of them).Guys like Emerson and Kodes were great natural athletes, as a few others.

Yes, but a Grand Slam is about winning 4 slam titles. The pro major only has 3 tournaments(French Pro, Wembley and US Pro) per year. Added to the fact that the draws consist between 8-14 players(slam has 128 players).

You like to hide negative facts.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

No way they were as athletic as players today. You either haven't seen their matches or you haven't seen a single match since the 90s.

That's just about every experts/ex-players have said about today's players are stronger, faster, more athletic, better trained, etc...

[Emet74]

kiki wrote:
"No love for Rafter? Bruguera?"

Well I was going off your original list. Yes, Rafter should definately be included as one of Pete GS rivals.

As for Bruguera, I dunno, Pete never went through him to win a GS, and had a losing record to him overall:From wikipeida: Bruguera is one of the few players to have a winning record against Sampras, winning three of their five matches: 1–0 on hard court, 2–1 on clay, and 0–1 on carpet

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

"Not there" means the finals, kid.

No, it means that he wasn't there, ie he didn't take part in the tournament (which he did).

Guess what? If you really wanted to convey the meaning that Federer didn't have to face Nadal in the final, you would have said, well, "... but he didn't have to face Nadal in the final".

Maybe you need to brush up on your comprehension skills, too...

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by tudwell

Come on, no one has ever seriously suggested that Roddick and Hewitt are better than Nadal or Djokovic.

I also don't know why people parade Nadal and Djokovic around as evidence that Federer had a weak field. He's won thirteen slams since Nadal first became a slam champion (more than Nadal has won in that same period) and five since Djokovic became a slam champion (the same number as Djokovic has won in that period).

Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest and that is the same point Djokovic emerged as a top player for the first time, still only 20 himself. Yeah Federer has been successful since they emerged, but he hasnt been nearly as dominant (of course the ****s conveniently put that down to being way past his prime and a rickety old man starting at 26, the moment he began losing any non clay slams). The same way Sampras was the best in the World for 6 years, but not as dominant relative to Federer, but part of that is he was facing Becker, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, as opposed to Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, and Ljubicic. Nadal and Djokovic provide Federer with just a glimpse of the type of competition Sampras had, and how much harder it is be as dominant with actual fellow greats as competition, rather than just a few very good but not great players.

As for nobody arguing Hewitt and Roddick are better than Djokovic atleast, just take a look at the Hewitt vs Djokovic thread and you will see that is not the case.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest

Seriously? Can you say that again with a straight face?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Nadal was a mug on clay until mid 2007 at the earliest and that is the same point Djokovic emerged as a top player for the first time, still only 20 himself. Yeah Federer has been successful since they emerged, but he hasnt been nearly as dominant (of course the ****s conveniently put that down to being way past his prime and a rickety old man starting at 26, the moment he began losing any non clay slams). The same way Sampras was the best in the World for 6 years, but not as dominant relative to Federer, but part of that is he was facing Becker, Agassi, Courier, Edberg, as opposed to Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, and Ljubicic. Nadal and Djokovic provide Federer with just a glimpse of the type of competition Sampras had, and how much harder it is be as dominant with actual fellow greats as competition, rather than just a few very good but not great players.

As for nobody arguing Hewitt and Roddick are better than Djokovic atleast, just take a look at the Hewitt vs Djokovic thread and you will see that is not the case.

You lost all credibility (not that you had much to begin with) with your first line. And you conveniently forget Safin, who is probably Federer's most talented peer. Sampras, like Nadal, had to contend with aging greats and, more importantly, a primary rival who was totally off-the-scene half the time.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Seriously? Can you say that again with a straight face?

I think he meant to say Nadal was a mug on grass until 2007?

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Apparently according to Federer fans the toughest and strongest competition in tennis history is when Roddick and Hewitt were #2 and #3 in the game. Hence why ****s so desperately go out of their way to inflate the abilities of them and even say they are really better than Nadal or Djokovic despite the slam count, LOL!

quoted for truth.

Historically speaking, exactly where to Hewitt and Roddick--with their overstated rankings--stand as true forces in the sport?

Nowhere, to be honest. They were blink-and-you-missed them in terms of cutting out a major piece of the sport's history, so for Federer fanatics to ever cite Roddick and/or Hewitt as competition of note illustrates how flimsy their "GOAT" claim is....

...that and Federer was not talented enough to win the Grand Slam.

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

quoted for truth.

Historically speaking, exactly where to Hewitt and Roddick--with their overstated rankings--stand as true forces in the sport?

Nowhere, to be honest. They were blink-and-you-missed them in terms of cutting out a major piece of the sport's history, so for Federer fanatics to ever cite Roddick and/or Hewitt as competition of note illustrates how flimsy their "GOAT" claim is....

...that and Federer was not talented enough to win the Grand Slam.

Roddick and Hewitt destroys Nadal at USO 2004 and AO 2005 when Nadal was in his HC prime!

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

You lost all credibility (not that you had much to begin with) with your first line. And you conveniently forget Safin, who is probably Federer's most talented peer. Sampras, like Nadal, had to contend with aging greats and, more importantly, a primary rival who was totally off-the-scene half the time.

I'm not sure what Fed's detractors are trying to prove. All of these players(NOle,Murray,Nadal,Hewitt,Roddick,Safin,Del Potro,Tsonga, Davy, Haas, Gonzo,Bagdatis,Soderling...) ALL belongs to Fed's competition. They all compete against one another and all of their achievements when Fed was present. Fed won all of his slams by having to go through all of them since 2003(pre-prime, prime and post-prime), and his recent slam title was W this year.

If we're comparing Fed vs. Sampras, or Borg vs. Laver competition then this makes more sense because they each have their own playing field to content with. Sampras had his own group to deal with and so does Fed including the names I've mentioned above.

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by Gorecki

Capra aegagrus hircus

People should work on beefing up their Latin and Esperanto.

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by sdont

Do you agree that Safin was lazy and could have won more if he had worked hard?

Is laziness a GOAT attribute?

If this and if that, maybe delicious fried wild mushrooms and pickled herring would grow right inside his mouth - that's what they would probably tell you in Kazan. When it comes to GOAT, it really isn't important if it's 2 or 20 slams. We all know the truth.