What would Federer choose if given this choice?

[Federer20042006]

Originally Posted by zagor

No, winning slams gets harder and harder over time, when you get into 15+ territory and especially at the twilight stage of Fed's career every additional slam has tremendous value.

Also remember, Fed grew up idolizing Sampras and thus very likely values slam count above everything else.

People aren't really going to remember when Federer won his slams, though. Can you name all of Sampras's slams off the top of your head?

In 40 years, when players are playing into their 40s regularly, more than one player will pass Federer's slam count, be it 18 or 19.

Sorry, but SOG just doesn't have anywhere near the same historic value as slams do,

That's because it hasn't been around very long. Come talk to me in 40 years.

if we look at the history of the sport the vast majority of tennis greats couldn't even compete at the Olympics, tennis simply wasn't an Olympic sport for the majority of its existence (was till 1924 then wasn't all the way until 1988 ).

And the majority of the tennis greats didn't give a rat's *** about the Australian Open back in the day, either.

I know Fed haters like yourself obsess over SOG because that's one of the rare things Fed doesn't have but that's your subjective view influenced heavily by your personal bias.

I'm a Federer fan, actually. I'm just stating my opinion on which would be better for Federer's legacy.

It doesn't matter whether anyone can take your SOG away from you or not, when comparing tennis greats the "meat" of the career is about slam performances (# of slams won, Calendar Grand slam, Career Grand Slam etc.), overall dominance (time spent as the world's best player) etc. SOG is a bonus, it's only the highlight of one's career if you're Nicholas Massu or something.

In terms of ranking the greats, it does. Andre Agassi has a permanent place in the pantheon of tennis greats thanks to his career golden slam. Take away the Olympics gold and it loses some of its shine. Take away the French Open and it loses all of its shine - his career becomes real a disappointment given his potential.

No, it's definitely not the same, here you're arguing about slams not about bonus stuff like SOG, DC, H2H etc.

Winning all of the biggest events is what makes a complete career. The Olympics have gained a major prestige in tennis over the last 8 years, and they'll continue to do so as time passes. When looking back on Federer's career, it'll be noteworthy that he never won the gold medal in singles.

Variety/completeness in slam performances, the main knock on Sampras was always him being a non-contender at FO (made one measly FO SF in his entire career) and arguably the lack of truly dominant tennis seasons (like for example Laver's CYGS, Fed's 3 slam years, Novak's 2011, Nadal's 2010 etc.) , not because he didn't have a SOG or trails in masters record when compared to Nadal, Fed, Lendl and Agassi for example.

Besides that's hardly the only area in which Fed has the edge over Sampras, here's the list of the top of my head:

-3 more slams
-More weeks at #1
-5 USOs in a row
-5 Wimbledons in a row (was regarded as one of the greatest achievement in the history of tennis when Borg did it in his day)
-3 years in which he won 3 slams (compared to zero)
-2 years in which he reached 4 slam finals (compared to zero)
-Their performance at their weakest slam- FO (5 finals and a title compared to one final)

And if Federer struggled as much as Sampras on clay, all of a sudden, his argument for GOAT is an intense debate for everyone. As of right now, only the Sampras ***** are really trying to claim Sampras > Federer.

You don't compare players solely by their strengths (otherwise Nadal is the GOAT basically because no one dominate any surface to the degree he did clay), you look at players' overall careers, not to mention that it's your subjective opinion Sampras gets the edge in faster slams, many would disagree on that.

That's right - the weaker aspects of Federer/Sampras's careers are what make the difference. If they were even in those weaker parts, the debate is no longer one-sided in Federer's favor. In fact, it's a dead heat.

Sampras has 8 US Open finals and 5 titles to Federer's 6 and 5. Federer has 8 Wimbledon finals and 7 titles to Sampras's 7 and 7. Same number of faster major slam totals, but Sampras has one more final. So I give Sampras a very slight edge to this point.

[larlarbd]

Originally Posted by SStrikerR

This is like asking if you'd rather drive a Ferrari or a school bus.

Well, Will I be driving the school bus potted or the Ferrari drunk , because my friend both sound very much fun. lol :P

No , I'm not in Colorado.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

People aren't really going to remember when Federer won his slams, though. Can you name all of Sampras's slams off the top of your head?

Yes, actually:

1990-USO
1993- USO and Wimbledon
1994- AO and Wimbledon
1995- USO and Wimbledon
1996-USO
1997- AO and Wimbledon
1998-2000-Wimbledon
2001- zero
2002- USO

However that wasn't exactly my point, slams are harder and harder to win as a player ages, it's not rocket science. Every additional slam Fed wins from now is more hyped, treated as a small miracle etc.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

In 40 years, when players are playing into their 40s regularly, more than one player will pass Federer's slam count, be it 18 or 19.

Pure guesswork.

Players regularly playing into their 40s is particulary funny.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

That's because it hasn't been around very long. Come talk to me in 40 years.

I could come talk to you in 50 years years, it still won't change the fact that a significant number of tennis greats couldn't even participate in the Olympics.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

And the majority of the tennis greats didn't give a rat's *** about the Australian Open back in the day, either.

Maybe but atleast they weren't completely barred from entering it.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

I'm a Federer fan, actually.

Sell that to someone else, I've seen enough for your BS to know that you couldn't possibly be further from being a Fed fan.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

I'm just stating my opinion on which would be better for Federer's legacy.

No, you're obsessing over cracks in Fed's legacy and overblowing them to ridiculous degree, if Fed had a SOG you wouldn't give a rat's *** about it, it would lose the special appeal it holds for you and your ilk.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

In terms of ranking the greats, it does.

No, it simply doesn't.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Andre Agassi has a permanent place in the pantheon of tennis greats thanks to his career golden slam.

Thanks to his career slam (among other accomplishments), not golden career slam.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Take away the Olympics gold and it loses some of its shine.

No, it's almost negligible, Agassi's position among all time greats wouldn't change to any significant degree even if he never won a SOG.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Take away the French Open and it loses all of its shine - his career becomes real a disappointment given his potential.

Not all of its shine but yes without FO (and thus career slam) Agassi's career would be seen as less spectacular no doubt.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Winning all of the biggest events is what makes a complete career.

Yes, Fed did win FO in 2009.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

The Olympics have gained a major prestige in tennis over the last 8 years...

Actually, better assumption would be 4 years, 8 years ago Nicholas Massu won it, that hardly increased it's prestige (quite the opposite actually).

Problem is, tennis history spans far beyond the last 4 years.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

and they'll continue to do so as time passes.

Guesswork again, maybe, maybe not.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

When looking back on Federer's career, it'll be noteworthy that he never won the gold medal in singles.

Nope, Fed winning SOG would have been a bonus to his career, it doesn't diminish his legacy in any way.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

And if Federer struggled as much as Sampras on clay, all of a sudden, his argument for GOAT is an intense debate for everyone. As of right now, only the Sampras ***** are really trying to claim Sampras > Federer.

If, if, if...

Fact is he didn't, even if he never won the title, 5 FO finals blow away one single SF out of the water.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

That's right - the weaker aspects of Federer/Sampras's careers are what make the difference.

The whole of Fed's career is what makes the difference.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

If they were even in those weaker parts, the debate is no longer one-sided in Federer's favor. In fact, it's a dead heat.

Again, if, if, if.

According to most people, Fed is clearly better than Sampras on slow HC and clay while roughly equal on fast HC and grass.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

ISampras has 8 US Open finals and 5 titles to Federer's 6 and 5. Federer has 8 Wimbledon finals and 7 titles to Sampras's 7 and 7. Same number of faster major slam totals, but Sampras has one more final. So I give Sampras a very slight edge to this point.

Except that Fed winning 5 USOs and 5 Wimbledons in a row is more than enough to offset one measly additional slam final.

Aren't Sampras fans constantly going about Pete's 6 years end #1 in a row? I don't remember them merely saying that Sampras has one more year end #1 than Fed.

[Steve0904]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

People aren't really going to remember when Federer won his slams, though. Can you name all of Sampras's slams off the top of your head?

In 40 years, when players are playing into their 40s regularly, more than one player will pass Federer's slam count, be it 18 or 19.

I don't know if players will ever play into their 40's consistently. Be serious now. Besides that, you totally missed the point. It's not about naming when Federer or Sampras won all their slams, zagor is saying it's about getting to 19. It doesn't matter when you won them. Btw, yes, in fact I could name all of Sampras's and Federer's slams without looking it up quite easily, and I'm sure plenty of others could to.

That's because it hasn't been around very long. Come talk to me in 40 years.

But that doesn't change the fact that right now the Olympics is not incredibly important, and a once every 4 years event should never stack up to the slams IMO.

And the majority of the tennis greats didn't give a rat's *** about the Australian Open back in the day, either.

But again the Aussie Open is a once a year event. The Olympics is once every 4 years

I'm a Federer fan, actually. I'm just stating my opinion on which would be better for Federer's legacy.

Fair enough.

In terms of ranking the greats, it does. Andre Agassi has a permanent place in the pantheon of tennis greats thanks to his career golden slam. Take away the Olympics gold and it loses some of its shine. Take away the French Open and it loses all of its shine - his career becomes real a disappointment given his potential.

True, but if you take away his FO, he'd still have 7 slams, and he'd still be a tennis great. His career doesn't lose all of its shine. Come on now. If you take away his gold medal he still has his career slam, which is much more important than a gold medal. He just happens to have both. For example Sampras is still better than Agassi in a lot of people's minds.

Winning all of the biggest events is what makes a complete career. The Olympics have gained a major prestige in tennis over the last 8 years, and they'll continue to do so as time passes. When looking back on Federer's career, it'll be noteworthy that he never won the gold medal in singles.

I think the Olympics has only started to get really huge this year honestly, but besides that, guys like McEnroe, Borg, and Connors didn't even get a chance at the Olympics. Is it noteworthy that they never won? Sure Federer has lost his chances when the other guys didn't even get any, but as of now the only guy anybody will put above him is Nadal, and he needs more accomplishments. The fact that Nadal doesn't as of yet have a title at the YEC is a bigger hole in his resume IMO than the gold medal, because the YEC has always had prestigious history. DC is a team event, and has no place in a singles discussion IMO, but that's neither here nor there.

And if Federer struggled as much as Sampras on clay, all of a sudden, his argument for GOAT is an intense debate for everyone. As of right now, only the Sampras ***** are really trying to claim Sampras > Federer.

But he didn't struggle so this is a moot point.

That's right - the weaker aspects of Federer/Sampras's careers are what make the difference. If they were even in those weaker parts, the debate is no longer one-sided in Federer's favor. In fact, it's a dead heat.

Sampras has 8 US Open finals and 5 titles to Federer's 6 and 5. Federer has 8 Wimbledon finals and 7 titles to Sampras's 7 and 7. Same number of faster major slam totals, but Sampras has one more final. So I give Sampras a very slight edge to this point.

All this is your opinion so that's fair enough. But it's very debatable, for example H2H 1-0 Federer, and that match took place on grass when Federer was 19 and Sampras was a 4 time defending champion at Wimbledon. Yes Sampras wasn't in his prime then, but that's another area where Fed is better than Sampras. He's done much better at an advanced age. But we shouldn't turn this into a Sampras-Federer debate.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Federer20042006

Yeah, until someone comes along and breaks the slam record. If someone is going to get to 18, there's a good chance they're going to get to 19. No count is ever safe. Records are made to be broken.

However, if a player wins the career Grand Slam and Olympic gold in singles...nobody can ever take that away from him. You can only win everything once...once.

Basically, this is the same as arguing that Federer would have preferred to end with 15 non-French Open majors over 14 with a French Open. Variety/completeness counts in tennis. It's what gives Federer the edge over Pete Sampras.

Otherwise, just looking at both of their strengths - on faster courts - they're basically even, with a slight edge to Sampras in the faster slams.

Your post makes no sense. The only reason the French Open was so important for Federer's (and Sampras's) legacy was because it is on Clay and winning it would prove Federer's (and Sampras's) credentials on Clay, which is a very important Tennis surface. The Olympics holds no such weight. For instance, Federer played his Olympic matches on Grass (2012) and Hard (2008, 2004, 2000). Federer has nothing to prove on those surfaces, considering he's won 7 Wimbledons (grass) and 9 USO+AOs (Hard). The Olympics would've been the definition of a bonus for him, mainly because it doesn't always happen on the same surface (even though USO and AO are on Hards, they play very differently so, again, they're both very significant). Federer has won Grand Slams on each of the surface all his Olympic matches were played on so, really, how is it a weakness that he didn't win the Gold Medal in Olympic Singles?

[ibbi]

How and why would anyone with a lick of sense pick option 2? Federer has made no secret of how much Olympic singles gold would mean to him, and the Davis Cup is the only major annual title he has yet to win, so that would be a monumental achievement for him too, and beating Nadal in Paris might just be the sweetest victory of his career.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by ibbi

How and why would anyone with a lick of sense pick option 2? Federer has made no secret of how much Olympic singles gold would mean to him, and the Davis Cup is the only major annual title he has yet to win, so that would be a monumental achievement for him too, and beating Nadal in Paris might just be the sweetest victory of his career.

LOL, self-ownage.

[tistrapukcipeht]

You have to ask him.

[Nathaniel_Near]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

You chose the wrong options to make your point. No biggie.



I have excplicitly stated what the one and the other option give.

You may perceive 2 Career Grand Slams and a positive H2H with Nadal as more "positive", than Federer further distancing himself from the rest of the field in the Open era Majors count and holding the number of titles record at two of the four Majors. I don't. Especially, if one of those two Majors is Wimbledon (or, for that matter, if both 2 Major titles are at SW19, giving him 9 overall)

There are all sorts of weaknesses in everybody's resume. Noone has a perfect resume and never will have one.

So it really is a choice between playing on your strengths or rectifying your weaknesses. I know what I would choose.




Yet, you talk about 2 Career Grand Slams, when we know perfectly well, that it is a term, used (in general) to just show the versatility of certain player and is even less meaningful, in the grand scheme of things.

Why engage in counting meaningless "achievements", if the number of Majors won is so overinflated, according to you?



The Majors are and will forever (as far as the Game is the same) be the most important thing in Tennis. There is some confusion about their importance, because of the separation before the Open era, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter.

As every Major title is a monumental achievement in itself (and more so now with the unified field and tournament scheme than before) I do not understand how people are disregarding the difference between 18 and 19. How come that it doesn't matter so much?

I hear you say, that for Federer to get the #1 position at the age of 32 would be massive. Sure, you will agree, that to get Wimbledon (or even two of those) at 32 or later would be massive too (it would be general conisistency against superhigh tennis level).


I think, that a lot of historians are slanted towards the old romantic perception of Tennis, being a sport within rivalries. A perception, that is wrong in itself, since the rivalries happen along the way and, in general, no two playerrs of the same generation are modified around their main rival's style. Even Nadal's style, which can be described as the worst possible matchup issue related to Federer's game, doesn't fit the bill exactly (although being the closest to modelling his game around someone elses's weaknesses).

H2Hs can be and are largely a product of circumstances. No need to overinflate that.

Bold - unfortunately and probably irrevocably incorrect.

As for the rest of the post, it doesn't get at the heart of why option 2 is so profoundly superior to option 1. The perception of the importance of Majors is overinflated to the extent where it has become a black and white judgement. When Federer got to 15 Majors, the amount of talk about him being certainly better than Sampras 'because he has 1 more Major' was virtually unintelligible. Not everybody was of this view though and enough people would point out that it was the addition of the RG title among other things that set Roger a little bit apart from Pete.

19 > 18 would certainly be true in the context of tennis achievements if it was the singular aspect of tennis achievements... except that it isn't, not even close. Logic is good.

[RF-17-GOAT]

Option 2 is a no-brainer tbh.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by RF-17-GOAT

Option 2 is a no-brainer tbh.

Some people think 2 majors > the other results.

[World Beater]

LOL at the constant pimping of the OLYMPICS.

Please...

The olympics are not a significant tennis achievement because it just doesnt have the history or the prestige.

But...

It is quite possiblY the most significant sporting achievement a TENNIS player could have. Note I said "SPORTING ACHIEVEMENT" not "TENNIS ACHIEVEMENT".

The WTF in this way is leagues and leagues ahead of the olympics when it comes to achieving something in the game of tennis. There just is no comparison right now. But give it another 10-15 years, that could change.

[*Sparkle*]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

No, it is not.
A Title from a Major is times more valuable than an OG medal. Besides, Federer is highly decorated Olympian as it is, so.

Going by that logic, he doesn't need any more slam titles, because he's already highly decorated in that respect. He's right up at the top when it comes to slam winners.

Olympic doubles is even more of a poor cousin to the singles title than the equivalent in slams. A silver medal is lauded more than a runners-up plate, but it's still second place and Roger wanted gold.

Slams are impressive, but they are not immune from the law of diminishing returns. Achieving the career grand slam is always going to be more impressive than winning 3 x AO and 2 x US Open. Both are great, but there is extra special about winning each trophy at least once.

A car is "better" than a bike, but if a man already has 10 cars, he doesn't much need an 11th. On the other hand, he might find a bike handy.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by *Sparkle*

Going by that logic, he doesn't need any more slam titles, because he's already highly decorated in that respect. He's right up at the top when it comes to slam winners.

Olympic doubles is even more of a poor cousin to the singles title than the equivalent in slams. A silver medal is lauded more than a runners-up plate, but it's still second place and Roger wanted gold.

Slams are impressive, but they are not immune from the law of diminishing returns. Achieving the career grand slam is always going to be more impressive than winning 3 x AO and 2 x US Open. Both are great, but there is extra special about winning each trophy at least once.

A car is "better" than a bike, but if a man already has 10 cars, he doesn't much need an 11th. On the other hand, he might find a bike handy.

OG cannot hold a candle against a Major. The very idea of choosing it is beyond doubt, one of the things, that only absolutists can hold in higher esteem.

What remains is the H2H with Nadal. I will not repeat my previous post.
Some people forget, that H2Hs a by-product.

Oh, and, by the way, the H2H is already factored in the equation. No amount of wins over Nadal will give Federer the Major titles, that he could have won without the spaniard.

Your example: Exactly, a bike is a bike. It is nothing like a car. If one values a car more than a bike, no bike will make him feel different about cars.

[*Sparkle*]

You've totally missed the point of the car/bike analogy, but then it doesn't suit your argument.

It's not as if Roger has any chance of winning a singles gold at Rio anyway, so it's academic, except of course someone else will win it, and Roger fanatics struggle to respect any achievement he's not achieved. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his fans would try to claim a deal with Lint is greater evidence of an impressive career than a gold medal.

The question could easily be "what's better, a rainbow or a unicorn?"

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel_Near

Bold - unfortunately and probably irrevocably incorrect.

As for the rest of the post, it doesn't get at the heart of why option 2 is so profoundly superior to option 1. The perception of the importance of Majors is overinflated to the extent where it has become a black and white judgement. When Federer got to 15 Majors, the amount of talk about him being certainly better than Sampras 'because he has 1 more Major' was virtually unintelligible. Not everybody was of this view though and enough people would point out that it was the addition of the RG title among other things that set Roger a little bit apart from Pete.

19 > 18 would certainly be true in the context of tennis achievements if it was the singular aspect of tennis achievements... except that it isn't, not even close. Logic is good.

It is not the singular aspect of the tennis achievements, but it is the most important. I would give preference to the most important aspect of someone's career, than to the filling.

Since you are so fond of "other" achievements, maybe you would be better off thinking about what would mean, if Federer wins two more Majors while the current crop of top players is in their prime. To me, that is much more significant, than a H2H with one player (be it Nadal).

By the way, intangibles are slippery surface. It is always better to step on something solid. Not that it matters, because only tennis nuts are busy with counting and estimating someone's career. There is no need to prove someone right or wrong.

I didn't give my opinion on the subject, beacuse i want to engage myself in endless discussions, but because I wanted to share my view on the subject, what would Federer choose, from a cultural and personal point of view (being from the same culture and all). I feel, that most of the people, who choose the OG and H2H are looking that matter from a rather depersonalized point of view (history, observers etc.). Federer is not indifferent , when it comes to records, but he is much more practical than many people here think.

The bolded part is correct. I do not doubt your intention.it is just that you chose the wrong examples to make your point.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by *Sparkle*

You've totally missed the point of the car/bike analogy, but then it doesn't suit your argument.

It's not as if Roger has any chance of winning a singles gold at Rio anyway, so it's academic, except of course someone else will win it, and Roger fanatics struggle to respect any achievement he's not achieved. I wouldn't be surprised if some of his fans would try to claim a deal with Lint is greater evidence of an impressive career than a gold medal.

The question could easily be "what's better, a rainbow or a unicorn?"

I didn't miss the point. In this analogy there is nothing.

Besides, where did you see me disrespecting someone's achievements?

The fact, that someone thinks, that OG is a big deal doesn't bother me one bit. I just do not think, that it is something, that can be compared to Majors, and, since on the line in that comparison is precisely a Major, it is a no brainer, where my preference will go.

[*Sparkle*]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

I didn't miss the point. In this analogy there is nothing.

You think there's nothing, because you missed the point.

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

Besides, where did you see me disrespecting someone's achievements?

That's not what I said. I talked in general terms about how some Roger fanatics struggle to respect any achievement that he hasn't achieved. Roger has not won Olympic gold, and IMO, some of his fans find it easier to think it's not an important accolade than it is for them to accept he didn't win something important. Whether or not you choose to include yourself in that group has nothing to do with me.

Moving back a bit. I'd imagine it would be a wonderful feeling to win the Davis Cup, but it's not as if anyone can be blamed for not winning it. It would be a great experience, but so utterly dependent on other people that it would be wrong to use it as a means of judging their place in history. But there's no reason to assume that's what this thread is about.

Personally, I think that if you'd asked Roger in January of this year if he'd like three more slams, or two more and Olympic gold, he'd pick the latter. He'd want it not just because it (IMO) enhances his legacy, but because winning gold for your country is a great thing to have done, and for Roger, doing it in singles is going to be more satisfying than doing it in doubles.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by *Sparkle*

You think there's nothing, because you missed the point.

I didn't.

In itself, the Olympic tournament is not a different experience from a technical point of view (i.e. as a tennis tournament it has its place as a difficulty and format and this place says, that it is not the pinnacle of tennis achievements). You may want to then enhance its value, by saying, that you play for your country and all. But what does that mean? Could you please elaborate?

Originally Posted by *Sparkle*

That's not what I said. I talked in general terms about how some Roger fanatics struggle to respect any achievement that he hasn't achieved. Roger has not won Olympic gold, and IMO, some of his fans find it easier to think it's not an important accolade than it is for them to accept he didn't win something important. Whether or not you choose to include yourself in that group has nothing to do with me.

Federer has not won Monte Carlo either. Should that make Federer fans uneasy too?

Originally Posted by *Sparkle*

Personally, I think that if you'd asked Roger in January of this year if he'd like three more slams, or two more and Olympic gold, he'd pick the latter. He'd want it not just because it (IMO) enhances his legacy, but because winning gold for your country is a great thing to have done, and for Roger, doing it in singles is going to be more satisfying than doing it in doubles.

It is a Major vs OG.
You can imagine what Federer would answer to your question all day long. The truth is, that he plays the sport for the biggest Titles and the most money. Both are to be had at the Majors. I know, that for some people that is unfathomable (seeing your and others posts), but it is nobody's fault, that they are divorced from reality.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

LOL, self-ownage.

Lol I noticed that too.