Why the GOAT does NOT exist

[Netspirit]

Can somebody sum the discussion up for newcomers, please? Why does not Federer exist, again?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sureshs

The YEC round robin where losers can win? Nadal is not a club player.

Olympics is a million times more prestigious tournament.

Yeah, at 750 points for the winner, it is a million-times more prestigious than a 1500-point event suresh, you make me laugh. And let's not forget about the "Real Slam"

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Yeah, at 750 points for the winner, it is a million-times more prestigious than a 1500-point event suresh, you make me laugh. And let's not forget about the "Real Slam"

In another case, it seems that this argument does not apply

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

In another case, it seems that this argument does not apply

I, personally, rate the Olympics and the Masters Cup equal. I was simply ridiculing the "million times" hyperbole sureshs resorted to. Anyway, what's that case you are referring to?

[Gonzo_style]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I, personally, rate the Olympics and the Masters Cup equal. I was simply ridiculing the "million times" hyperbole sureshs resorted to. Anyway, what's that case you are referring to?

The answer is very simple, Monte Carlo Rolex Masters

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Gonzo_style

The answer is very simple, Monte Carlo Rolex Masters

I don't get what you're trying to say.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by Netspirit

Can somebody sum the discussion up for newcomers, please? Why does not Federer exist, again?

Oh you know, the haters can't accept that the guy who has been ranked #1 the most and has also won the most majors is the GOAT, typical Wednesday afternoon nonsense, it'll start over again next week, but Fed will still be the GOAT.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Then Laver would not even be a GOAT candidate because Sampras and Federer have more Slams.

And on the other hand, since he had so many more doubles and mixed doubles titles, he would be a GOAT.

Not it does not work that way.

And most important tournament? What is that? And Nadal has won that too LOL.

Variety of tournaments is also important. Sampras could not win the FO, so that destroys his claim to GOAT. Federer could not win the Olympics gold in a good number of tries - it is much more pressure because it comes only once in 4 years while Slams are a dime a dozen. Nadal handled the pressure better.

Actually..the most rare tournament which only came along one time was blue clay. And on that, Nadal couldn't even stand up straight. kept slipping. Guess who won the only ever blue clay tournament in the history of our sport. ROGER MOTHER****ING FEDERER.

So by your own logic, Federe handled pressure the best

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

There's noone out there that can refute ******* arguments better than you

I actually took a logic and philosophy module in my first year UNI..

Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than absolutely owning *******s and religious people, both equally irrational.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sonicare

I actually took a logic and philosophy module in my first year UNI..

Nothing gives me greater satisfaction than absolutely owning *******s and religious people, both equally irrational.

Oh, high five. I find religious people irrational, too.

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Oh, high five. I find religious people irrational, too.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Blocker

So let’s have a look at some of the GOAT candidates....

Federer
Has the most slams, has the career slam, but is owned by Nadal. Sorry Federer fans, I have taken on board everything you have said..

Obviously you've not taken on the single most important factor pertaining to head-to-heads: They don't matter squat

They never have and never will - except to partisan hacks clutching at straws.

Why? Because beating someone per se is not an achievement in tennis. There are no trophies and no awards for having beaten any particular player. What matter is titles won. That is it.

I can hear you saying: but if Federer was better how come he lost to Nadal more often than not? Simple: because Federer was getting to finals in 9 out of 10 tournaments in his prime, during which Nadal was only getting to 5 out of 10 finals. He was losing to guys Federer later beat.

So, if you want to do a real calculation of it: take all the times they beat each other and then add on all the times each of them beat someone who's ousted the other later in a tournament. The head to head would add another 30 wins to Federer, but only 3 or 4 to Nadal - simply because Nadal was not good enough to challenge often enough even if his peak ability was as good as Federer's.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Sampras
Has the second most slams.
Pretty much won his H2H rivalries.
No career slam (no FO). For this reason, Sampras is not the GOAT.

Much simpler: 17 is better than 14 no matter how you bake it.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Borg
I’ll make an exception re the career slam for Borg given that he did not give two hoots about the AO.

Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker of Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Borg. And that's also not even considering the career slam he didn't achieve)

Originally Posted by Blocker

Agassi
If there is one player who ticks all the boxes as far as winning everything worth winning is concerned, it is Agassi. Won all the slams, won the YEC/WTF and won an Olympic singles gold medal.

Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount of achievements at the highest level.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Connors
Never won the FO and was owned by Borg in their big matches. So Connors is not the GOAT.

Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Lendl
Never won Wimbledon and was owned by Becker in their biggest matches. Not the GOAT.

Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.

Originally Posted by Blocker

McEnroe
His slam count never made it to double digits and he never won the FO. He must still have nightmares about that 1984 final against Lendl.

Much simpler: 17 is better than 7. Far more than double the amount.

Originally Posted by Blocker

Nadal
Nadal is an interesting one. Has won the career slam but still trails Federer in total slams won, even though he owns their H2H. Another thing which rules...

Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker or Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Nadal)

Originally Posted by Blocker

Laver
I’m not going to comment about Laver. I never saw him play. Everyone knows him as the man that has won the GRAND SLAM OF TENNIS twice.

Laver is the only person who there is a legitimate argument for considering him the GOAT - despite winning far fewer majors that Federer - he won the holy grail, the calendar slam which, depending who you speak to - trumps sheer numbers.

Outside of achievements the only real arguments that can be made that Federer isn't the (open era) GOAT have to delve into how hard the eras/competition were... Those debates are long and usually pointless.

[World Beater]

Sampras doesnt have much standing in the GOAT argument anymore, therefore his disciples have to claim that there is no such thing as GOAT...which of course is convenient.

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Obviously you've not taken on the single most important factor pertaining to head-to-heads: They don't matter squat

They never have and never will - except to partisan hacks clutching at straws.

Why? Because beating someone per se is not an achievement in tennis. There are no trophies and no awards for having beaten any particular player. What matter is titles won. That is it.

I can hear you saying: but if Federer was better how come he lost to Nadal more often than not? Simple: because Federer was getting to finals in 9 out of 10 tournaments in his prime, during which Nadal was only getting to 5 out of 10 finals. He was losing to guys Federer later beat.

So, if you want to do a real calculation of it: take all the times they beat each other and then add on all the times each of them beat someone who's ousted the other later in a tournament. The head to head would add another 30 wins to Federer, but only 3 or 4 to Nadal - simply because Nadal was not good enough to challenge often enough even if his peak ability was as good as Federer's.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 14 no matter how you bake it.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker of Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Borg. And that's also not even considering the career slam he didn't achieve)


Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount of achievements at the highest level.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 8. More than double the amount.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 7. Far more than double the amount.


Much simpler: 17 is better than 11. (Federer has Becker or Edberg's whole career worth of majors more than Nadal)


Laver is the only person who there is a legitimate argument for considering him the GOAT - despite winning far fewer majors that Federer - he won the holy grail, the calendar slam which, depending who you speak to - trumps sheer numbers.

Outside of achievements the only real arguments that can be made that Federer isn't the (open era) GOAT have to delve into how hard the eras/competition were... Those debates are long and usually pointless.

Like I said, heard it all before. Comparing slams across different eras is like comparing shoe laces with spaceships.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Like I said, heard it all before. Comparing slams across different eras is like comparing shoe laces with spaceships.

Let's compare Federer and Sampras.

Federer has 17 Slams to Sampras's 14. (7/7 Wimbledons, 5/5 US Opens, 4/2 Australian Opens, 1/0 French Opens)

Federer has 6 TMC to Sampras's 5

Federer has 302 weeks at #1 to Sampras's 286

Federer has 24 Grand Slam finals to Sampras's 18


And you bring up Federer's head-to-head against Nadal? Sampras has a losing record against Krajicek of all people!


If anything is a fact, it's that Federer > Sampras. He even beat Sampras on Sampras's best surface (2001 Wimbledon, on fast Grass).

Face it, man. Federer destroyed Sampras's claims to being the GOAT. Just accept it

[Sabratha]

Federer is the GOAT, no matter which argument you try to use.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Actually in slams, Sampras and K are 1-1. You see Sampras got him in the end, at the USO, 2000 I think. And he did it after being a set down. Now while being a set down against a guy who beats him regularly would have caused Fed to fret and go into his shell, Sampras dug deep and got his revenge. Now we all know what happens to Fed when he's a set down against Nadal don't we. He hangs his head, he gets teary eyed, he goes into his shell. Heck he's even been know to lose to a major rival when he's match point up.

Yeah, and 1-1 against Krajicek is something to be proud about? He is still 4-6 behind, which is rather shameful for a player of Sampras's stature, doncha think? Also, Federer, the "teary eyed" Federer who can't dominate his rival, is 1-0 against Sampras in Slams. On the fast Grass of Wimbledon, no less Besides, Federer has come from 2 sets down to beat Nadal before. You just don't know he did

Anyway, what are we arguing about here?

17 : 14
7:7
5:5
4:2
1:0

Federer would totally wipe the floor with Sampras on Clay and on Rebound Ace/Plexicushion. He even proved he could beat Sampras on fast Wimbledon grass, let alone the slow Grass of today. Federer would probably beat Sampras on all 3 surfaces, you know. What're you smoking with, "Sampras would be the last man standing"?

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

It's all about Sampras, and you know it. You don't have an argument to make for Sampras's GOAT-ness so now you're just arguing that there is no GOAT. And you have the audacity to suppose Sampras would be the "last man standing" if there were to be a knock-out tournament between all the GOAT candidates and still suggest this is not about Sampras Hilarious! If I'm Federer's dad, you must be Sampras's wife

Go back and read what I said again. I said Sampras would be the last man standing as long as Federer was on the other side of the draw and Nadal took him out. This is implying that if Sampras and Fed were on the same side of the draw, Fed would probably knock Sampras out. IMO Sampras would win on grass, Fed on clay and the hardcourt would be very close, but probably Federer just.

Sheesh, how is that being all about Sampras?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Blocker

Go back and read what I said again. I said Sampras would be the last man standing as long as Federer was on the other side of the draw and Nadal took him out. This is implying that if Sampras and Fed were on the same side of the draw, Fed would probably knock Sampras out. IMO Sampras would win on grass, Fed on clay and the hardcourt would be very close, but probably Federer just.

Sheesh, how is that being all about Sampras?

Federer leads Nadal in the Grasscourt head-to-head and the Hardcourt head-to-head, in case you didn't know. Picking Federer would've made far more sense. Not that I would expect you to make the sensible choice

And you just now conceded that Federer would beat Sampras in your scenario. What makes you think Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal when he leads the head-to-head on two surfaces? Remember, you said all players were in their peak. Peak, or even prime, Federer, never lost to Nadal on Grass or Hards at Grand Slams. It was only post-2007 that he started losing to Nadal outside of Clay at Slams. Even if Federer would've lost to Nadal (which is certainly very possible), what makes you think Nadal could've made it far enough to meet Federer? That's the story of his life, right? That he's never made it far enough to meet prime-Federer on Hardcourt-Slams?

[Blocker]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Federer leads Nadal in the Grasscourt head-to-head and the Hardcourt head-to-head, in case you didn't know. Picking Federer would've made far more sense. Not that I would expect you to make the sensible choice

And you just now conceded that Federer would beat Sampras in your scenario. What makes you think Federer couldn't have beaten Nadal when he leads the head-to-head on two surfaces? Remember, you said all players were in their peak. Peak, or even prime, Federer, never lost to Nadal on Grass or Hards at Grand Slams. It was only post-2007 that he started losing to Nadal outside of Clay at Slams. Even if Federer would've lost to Nadal (which is certainly very possible), what makes you think Nadal could've made it far enough to meet Federer? That's the story of his life, right? That he's never made it far enough to meet prime-Federer on Hardcourt-Slams?

I can only go by their hardcourt matches in the slams. I've seen two of them, live in fact, and in every saspect, Nadal had Federer covered. Just as you are trying to convey that Fed has Sampras' record covered, Nadal had Fed, on a tennis court seperated by a net, covered...twice.