What does greatness mean to you?

Razer said:

Federer is now a loser, the man got surpassed before his retirement, his monumental ego has been broken, he finally understands how to be humble. Do you get this? This is a fact. You trolling around or doing mental gymnastics will not change the fact. 24>22>20. Federer's last shred of dignity stripped from him.

Statistically Federer is no longer on the front page

So you trying too hard to sell Federer is just embarrassing for you.

Click to expand...

"IF Novak wins an 8th wimbledon and then 9th, then will see Federer's last shred of dignity stripped from him"

Bro.

That's a sad and terrible way for you - or anyone - to view life.

And it certainly has no dignity in it.

FlaredButt said:

I agree with all this. and i also think it matters the way in which the dominant tennis was played. Roger’s game was aggressive yet elegant. Not boring, defense-oriented pushing like some players (especially in WTA) have achieved #1 rankings (e.g. Wozniaki)

Click to expand...

I know others can like tennis I find boring so I don’t wanna hyper rag on others - but I also agree that Feds attacking game was so different and captivating - and it is a big part of why people in 2006 - long before the records - were calling him the greatest.

It was his dominance AND his game.

It’s telling David Foster Wallace’s famous piece “Roger Federer as Religious Experience” was written years before he had the slam record - or any of his important records.

“There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was”. The Natural

That’s Fed to me.

Federev said:

"IF Novak wins an 8th wimbledon and then 9th, then will see Federer's last shred of dignity stripped from him"

Bro.

That's a sad and terrible way for you - or anyone - to view life.

And it certainly has no dignity in it.

Click to expand...

Well its not surprising when the opposite definitions of words are used. (Subjective = Objective) implies (Greatest = Most Insignificant)

The amusing thing about this is that the overwhelming majority of people still think Federer is greater than Djokovic lol.

You don't need to force faulty definitions on people if you have logical arguments.

Federev said:

I know others can like tennis I find boring so I don’t wanna hyper rag on others - but I also agree that Feds attacking game was so different and captivating - and it is a big part of why people in 2006 - long before the records - were calling him the greatest.

It was his dominance AND his game.

It’s telling David Foster Wallace’s famous piece “Roger Federer as Religious Experience” was written years before he had the slam record - or any of his important records.

“There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was”. The Natural

That’s Fed to me.

Click to expand...

The numbers were a by-product of his greatness as a player. The numbers do not tell us what made Federer great. Circumstances are context that influence the statistics.

Silentchimera said:

You don't need to force faulty definitions on people if you have logical arguments.

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair I think - in terms of the way most people think of “greatest” - Novak has A LOT to support him.

I just don’t think he’s played the highest level of tennis - I think Fed did.

Fed basically has a few records left - most weeks at no 1 in a row - is a big one. USO and WB leader, 5 in a row at both, 18/19 finals in a row is crazy. These are great.

But if they fall it won’t change a thing for me unless the players quality of game is clearly better than Feds.

Silentchimera said:

The numbers were a by-product of his greatness as a player. The numbers do not tell us what made Federer great.

Click to expand...

100%

Federev said:

100%

Click to expand...

You could put the exact same tier 1 ATG into all of the different birth years and there would be a huge variation in their career achievements. I look at a players achievements in terms of how they performed with their unique set of circumstances. For eg: losing efforts.

Federev said:

Well, to be fair I think - in terms of the way most people think of “greatest” - Novak has A LOT to support him.

I just don’t think he’s played the highest level of tennis - I think Fed did.

Fed basically has a few records left - most weeks at no 1 in a row - is a big one. USO and WB leader, 5 in a row at both, 18/19 finals in a row is crazy. These are great.

But if they fall it won’t change a thing for me unless the players quality of game is clearly better than Feds.

Click to expand...

You and I can make arguments for Djokovic. That is the difference lol.

Federev said:

I know others can like tennis I find boring so I don’t wanna hyper rag on others - but I also agree that Feds attacking game was so different and captivating - and it is a big part of why people in 2006 - long before the records - were calling him the greatest.

It was his dominance AND his game.

It’s telling David Foster Wallace’s famous piece “Roger Federer as Religious Experience” was written years before he had the slam record - or any of his important records.

“There goes Roy Hobbs, the best there ever was”. The Natural

That’s Fed to me.

Click to expand...

this was beautiful

Federev said:

"IF Novak wins an 8th wimbledon and then 9th, then will see Federer's last shred of dignity stripped from him"

Bro.

That's a sad and terrible way for you - or anyone - to view life.

And it certainly has no dignity in it.

Click to expand...

I am only replying to the poster who is trolling in this thread on greatness. That is why my own replies seem harsh and sorta denigrating Federer types.
On a more serious note, I am a strong believer in statistics, in any sports we look at numbers and they are what set the narrative. Today people defending Roger post he losing the record are no different from fans of Peter defending him when Roger was fast approaching his numbers. Fanbases will always have their view on greatness by clinging on the former hero, however nothing surpasses numbers. The way you are talking of peak levels, Peter fans used to tell us about strong competition, diversity in playing conditions, dominance of 6 year end 1s etc etc...... So this is a song I've heard 15 years ago, thats why I am not impressed with all this defense of Federer using subjective parameters. In the end the final slam count means a lot.

I asked a friend who was using faulty definitions of greatness a question:

Who is greater: Muhammad Ali or Floyd Mayweather?
Who is greater: Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic?

These were the answers and reasons given:

Greatness = Subjective: Ali > Mayweather (their independant thinking, not meaningless numbers!!!)
Greatness = Objective: Djokovic > Federer (only meaningless numbers without discussion of context!!!)

This is illogical. It doesn't matter which sport! Greatness always has the same definition! They choose Fantasy/Reality definitions depending on bias.

This was my response:

That is a very interesting interpretation of greatness. (subjective interpretation: Ali=Heavyweight, Mayweather= Inferior Weight Class) I have a very different view about why Muhammad Ali is far greater than Floyd Mayweather. I'm sure you could haphazard a guess if you wanted to?

I share the same view as Muhammad Ali that Sugar Ray Robinson is one of the greatest boxers of all time. Sugar Ray Robinson achieved most of his success in the welterweight and middle weight divisions. I will quote the great man himself to see his perspective...

"I idolised Sugar Ray Robinson, he was the perfect boxer. I wanted to be just like him." He went on to say that watching Robinson fight was like "watching poetry in motion"

"Sugar Ray Robinson, he's still my idol. If anyone is ever greater than me it's Sugar Ray Robinson".

"Pound-for-pound. When they say Sugar Ray Robinson was the greatest fighter pound-for-pound, meaning that if I imagine he was a Heavyweight fighting with the same style, he would be the greatest. I would have to admit, I would have to say yes. I have his fight films, and that man was beautiful.
Timing, speed, reflexes, rhythm, his body, everything was beautiful."

Did you notice what first came to mind for the great man himself when giving his reasons why his idol was pound-for-pound the greatest boxer of all time? These were likely the key attributes of greatness he most valued that surely helped him become maybe.. "The Greatest Boxer of All Time"? Muhammad Ali has inferior wiki stats (without context) to other boxers like his idol!

I'm sure Ali probably cared a lot about his idols boxing record (with context!) Stats only have meaning in the context of those very specific circumstances. Numbers without context are useless in a greatness debate.

I donno why you are comparing Ali and Mayweather when any heavyweight champ across history is better than Mayweather.

Get the drift bud..... Mayweather's stats are only great in his weight class, had he scored them in the heavyweight division then he would have been the GOAT across boxing.

Boxing being used in reference to a Federer vs Djokovic debate. What does it say?

@Silentchimera one thing that might ease your anguish:

Acknowledging that something is defined objectively doesn’t necessarily mean it is universally understood.

Objective truth can be pursued, but not universally understood in the grandest sense.

Subjectivity is mere preference and not worth debating, as you’ve said.

Razer said:

I am only replying to the poster who is trolling in this thread on greatness. That is why my own replies seem harsh and sorta denigrating Federer types.
On a more serious note, I am a strong believer in statistics, in any sports we look at numbers and they are what set the narrative. Today people defending Roger post he losing the record are no different from fans of Peter defending him when Roger was fast approaching his numbers. Fanbases will always have their view on greatness by clinging on the former hero, however nothing surpasses numbers. The way you are talking of peak levels, Peter fans used to tell us about strong competition, diversity in playing conditions, dominance of 6 year end 1s etc etc...... So this is a song I've heard 15 years ago, thats why I am not impressed with all this defense of Federer using subjective parameters. In the end the final slam count means a lot.

Click to expand...

I think I understand your point but I don’t think I agree.

I think there is standard - not just fan-bias generated - agreement on the uniquely compelling nature of Feds game v Novak and - for that matter - Peter Sampras.

If Peter had the captivating game Federer had, everyone - not just his most devoted fans - would have talked about his game like they talk about Federer’s.

But in general the tennis culture didn’t talk about his game like that because he didn’t have a captivating game on Fed’s level.

(Hence Wallace’s article when Federer was YEARS away from Peter’s records).

Peter’s game is pejoratively attacked by some as serve-bot centric. I don’t think that’s fair, but I understand why.

Feds game never gets that kind of critique from broad minded fans.

His game (and Rafa’s perfect complement to it) was just more compelling than any we’d seen - for most fans - and it’s still true.

And even today - folks who praise Novak on the merits of his great accomplishments (and they are greater than Fed’s by the numbers) rarely if ever praise his “captivating game”.

In fact l, I’ve never heard any commentator talk about his game (not just a shot here or there) as particularly entrancing / entertaining. They will say it is clinically perfect or weakness free - but never that it’s enjoyable/ compelling.

That - along w his dominance - is one of the things that made Fed so great.

It’s fine if that doesn’t matter to you. I get your take on numbers alone.

It’s just not my thing, nor for many fans like me.

See below

FlaredButt said:

Subjectivity is mere preference and not worth debating, as you’ve said.

Click to expand...

Subjectivity is a prerequisite for a greatness debate. It is important to challenge our bias. Objectivity can not be debated.

Federev said:

I think I understand your point but I don’t think I agree.

I think there is standard - not just fan-bias generated - agreement on the uniquely compelling nature of Feds game v Novak and - for that matter - Peter Sampras.

If Peter had the captivating game Federer had, everyone - not just his most devoted fans - would have talked about his game like they talk about Federer’s.

But in general the tennis culture didn’t talk about his game like that because he didn’t have a captivating game on Fed’s level.

(Hence Wallace’s article when Federer was YEARS away from Peter’s records).

Peter’s game is pejoratively attacked by some as serve-bot centric. I don’t think that’s fair, but I understand why.

Feds game never gets that kind of critique from broad minded fans.

His game (and Rafa’s perfect complement to it) was just more compelling than any we’d seen - for most fans - and it’s still true.

And even today - folks who praise Novak on the merits of his great accomplishments (and they are greater than Fed’s by the numbers) rarely if ever praise his “captivating game”.

In fact l, I’ve never heard any commentator talk about his game (not just a shot here or there) as particularly entrancing / entertaining. They will say it is clinically perfect or weakness free - but never that it’s enjoyable/ compelling.

That - along w his dominance - is one of the things that made Fed so great.

It’s fine if that doesn’t matter to you. I get your take on numbers alone.

It’s just not my thing, nor for many fans like me.

Click to expand...

Federer's game was more dominant than Peter's and that was also because of a vacuum of no ATGs at that time born for 15 years better Peter and Rafael. That and Federer's greatness too which made him separate himself from the field. That why Wallace wrote that silly article, everybody was mesmerized by it. Look I am not saying dont be mesmerized by Federer's greatness, I myself was for ages, but now it is time to snap out of it. Records have been broken and lemme tell you that has taken a shine off Roger's charm, it was all hunky dory in the 2000s but later on that changed. Roger looked very effortless against Roddick and Hewitt, to that extent which made people ask him if he sweats or not. However that became different when he faced Djokodal later who were suddenly making his shots look less stylish, as he is losing he is not looking classy anymore. So you see as long as the charm lasts it is all good, once that wears off.... it is time to divorce.

Razer said:

Federer's game was more dominant than Peter's and that was also because of a vacuum of no ATGs at that time born for 15 years better Peter and Rafael. That and Federer's greatness too which made him separate himself from the field. That why Wallace wrote that silly article, everybody was mesmerized by it. Look I am not saying dont be mesmerized by Federer's greatness, I myself was for ages, but now it is time to snap out of it. Records have been broken and lemme tell you that has taken a shine off Roger's charm, it was all hunky dory in the 2000s but later on that changed. Roger looked very effortless against Roddick and Hewitt, to that extent which made people ask him if he sweats or not. However that became different when he faced Djokodal later who were suddenly making his shots look less stylish, as he is losing he is not looking classy anymore. So you see as long as the charm lasts it is all good, once that wears off.... it is time to divorce.

Click to expand...

For you maybe.

Fed never lacked a compelling game to me.

Fedovic rivalry and Fedal rivalries produced more interesting compelling tennis than Djokdal rivalry because of Fed and the way he forced Djokdal to do more w their game than others did.

(Even though he was 5-6 years and past his peak for most of the span of those rivalries.)

Silentchimera said:

This is not a GOAT debate thread, it is a discussion about the meaning of greatness to each individual. This is an example of discussing context (global outreach, era/conditions, competition, statistics) that contribute to the whole package of greatness (to me). This is only a small fraction of relevant context to me! I wrote this in 20 minutes... My beliefs and opinions of what greatness means are up for debate. This is so I can become greater as an individual. We should not decide our values by popular opinion, but this tells me my belief's and opinions are widely shared (unlike many suggest).

(Poll below post) I decided to google a poll of the greatest sportsmen of all time. This is the first poll I opened and was conducted when Djokovic already had 24 majors. Federer is No. 10. He is ranked right next to Pele Lebron, Bo Jackson, a bit above Messi and a bit below Michael Phelps! No other male tennis player made the Top 50...

I looked at a few other recent polls for greatest sportsmen hurriedly and they all had Federer at the top for tennis and near the top out of all sports like the poll i linked. This could be an American biased poll, so it could be pro America biased. Federer is the only male tennis player on the list. Djokovic is very far from being the consensus GOAT in tennis (and never will be).

If your only arguments are the numbers, it rules you out automatically! Numbers alone clearly do not define sporting greatness, in the minds of the people, the sport exists to serve in the first place! Those who argue otherwise: Wouldn't even have their tennis wiki stats, to cite constantly (without context), if the matches were not relevant context!

Federer has plenty of arguments to still be your tennis GOAT, despite what many would try to have you believe. Apparently, nobody cares about Djokovic's Top 10 wins over 90's gen (Or Djokovic's supposedly "strong" competition from players older than him that were from Federer's era/generational talent. Players that Federer also played when they were his age, or when they were younger than he was! Just like me!) Federer clearly had the toughest competition out of the Big 3 (it's extremely difficult to argue otherwise!).

Let's also not forget that Federer built his game to dominate, in a transitional era, where the conditions were changing rapidly. That versatile game with his one-handed backhand won him 11/16 majors in his record peak age stretch and 16/27 majors with a career grand slam in his record prime age stretch. He managed records like 237 consecutive weeks at No.1, 18/19 consecutive finals, 23 consecutive semis, 5 straight Wimbledons and US Opens, the second channel slam since Bjorn Borg, 3 majors a year 3 times, all majors finals reached in a year 3 times, 24 straight finals won, 65 and 56 consecutive matches won on grass and hardcourt respectively, 7 consecutive finals won including his first final reached, 4 consecutive finals on his worst surface...(link insane win % during peak/prime stretches) and many more records (that are taking too long to list) and feats during his record prime stretch.

To me, that clearly indicates Federer has the best peak and prime by the numbers. I love Federer's streak records. They were always his best records to me. This was because they were the most exciting to witness. His records are simply amazing! This was dominance that has never been seen before. There are different numbers people should look at beside total major count if they want more than a shallow interpretation of a players career. The absolute fixation with total major count isnt healthy and doesn't do a great sport the justice it deserves. He still won 20 slams! 6 more than the old record he broke!

Federer set all of these records i listed at peak and prime age. This is the age that players almost always are at their best. The data shows this hasnt changed in recent times. The best players are aware of the aging curve. They use historical data that is good at predicting future performance based on age. It makes sense to me he didn't win as much, when he started leaving prime age. At this time conditions stabilised to support pure baseliners that were younger than him like Nadal and Djokovic.

Ladies and gentlemen, Federer is the tennis GOAT who came from the "strong" era (to me).

Those other two players are still pretty great though I guess..

Nah, they are amazingly great players! (I didn't even talk about Federer's playstyle yet! Probably my favourite thing about Roger! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/sport/11241818/greatest-sports-star-michael-jordan-messi-ronaldo/amp/

Click to expand...

Can’t open your poll. I get an error message.

Silentchimera said:

Subjectivity is a prerequisite for a greatness debate. It is important to challenge our bias. Objectivity can not be debated.

Click to expand...

Subjectivity being a prerequisite for debate… i think you must have your own definition of subjectiveness because debating preference, feelings, and individual experiences is not really a debate. that was my point as to why you’re seeming to be in anguish in this thread

FlaredButt said:

Subjectivity being a prerequisite for debate… i think you must have your own definition of subjectiveness because debating preference, feelings, and individual experiences is not really a debate. that was my point as to why you’re seeming to be in anguish in this thread

Click to expand...

Subjectivity is a prerequisite for debating a subjective word. objectivity(numbers with no context): nothing that can be debated.

No context: 1 = 1, What are we comparing? 1 Roger Federer = 1 club tennis player? Illogical when subjectivity is needed.

The definition of greatness allows: 1 RU > 1 W. If it is logical.

FlaredButt said:

Subjectivity being a prerequisite for debate… i think you must have your own definition of subjectiveness because debating preference, feelings, and individual experiences is not really a debate. that was my point as to why you’re seeming to be in anguish in this thread

Click to expand...

Objective(no context): How can you debate: 1+1 = 2? Greatness has subjectivity by definition (context). I've been through the consequences of using opposite word definitions already. Everything has been explained more than clearly enough so... To enter a debate about greatness: The real definition must be used... Greatness(subjective) = Greatness. Not fantasy definitions that have opposite meanings lol. Last post on this... Using: Greatness(objective) = Insignificance! The opposite of greatness! Come back to reality if you want to debate in reality... Until then (for you): Federer is the GOAT!

I hope I have played my part to help people understand the meaning of greatness. Everyone MUST have their own meaning of greatness (as long as it remains subjective!). Nobody can force you to accept that greatness is not subjective! This is the opposite definition of greatness and means More Insignificant! (Fantasy Land!)

I wanted people to know more about their individual rights. Everyone can have their own GOAT as long as it's logical! Use your rights so that people can't force you to believe their faulty logic, (they don't believe themselves in reality!) to control what you think and believe!

Greatness allows this to be logical: 1 strong major = 2 weak majors. 1 RU > 1 Title at the same event at a different time. To those that can't debate: (People Using an Opposite Definition of Greatness!): Federer is (i believe) the GOAT! (for you and me in reality!)

Razer said:

I donno why you are comparing Ali and Mayweather when any heavyweight champ across history is better than Mayweather.

Get the drift bud..... Mayweather's stats are only great in his weight class, had he scored them in the heavyweight division then he would have been the GOAT across boxing.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant! Greatness is ALWAYS subjective! It doesn't matter what context you apply to greatness, it is always subjective! Unless you want it to mean INSIGNIFICANCE! You cannot choose your own definition, to support your bias, whenever you want.

RS said:

Boxing being used in reference to a Federer vs Djokovic debate. What does it say?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant! The meaning of greatness is ALWAYS subjective! It doesn't matter what context you apply to greatness, it is always subjective! Unless you want it to mean INSIGNIFICANCE! You cannot choose your own definition, to support your bias, whenever you want.

Federev said:

Can’t open your poll. I get an error message.

Click to expand...

Included about 5 polls of greatest sportsman ever. Federer transcended the sport and sits beside the immortal greats, that ever played sport! It is perfectly logical to consider a GOAT of all sport to be > GOAT in their individual sport! (especially tennis, not as globally acknowledged).

He sits above Messi frequently and close to Jesse Owens, Ronaldo, Michael Phelps, Pele, Usain Bolt, Lebron James...all of these guys! He made tennis a sport this widely respected globally. Looking at Djokovic and Nadal... just not anywhere near as globally recognised for greatness like Federer! (no offense!) This is what happens, when you insist on numbers! lol. I have much better numbers, that are actually related to greatness!

These meaningless numbers they use are totally worthless. I looked at around 15 polls and they have Federer top 10 greatest sportsmen at least usually and up to 7th of all time. New polls too... This is very common to see wherever I look. I'm trying to respect these poster's rights to have their own meaning of greatness! Otherwise there really is no debate at all lol.

Silentchimera said:

Included about 5 polls of greatest sportsman ever. Federer transcended the sport and sits besides the immortal greats that ever played sport! It is perfectly logical to consider a GOAT of all sport to be GOAT in their individual sport (especially tennis). He sits above Messi frequently and close to Michael Phelps, Pele, all of these guys! He made tennis a sport this widely respected globally.

Click to expand...

Can you try again to post the link? It might have been incorrect before?

These poster's have to challenge their bias! They have a ridiculous amount, of work to do, before any tennis player will get close to considered as great as Federer globally! They need to get past Messi first lol. Every poll i look at gives the same kind of answers. It doesn't matter anyway: If you understand greatness is up to the individual. These posters don't respect the definition of greatness. It is impossible for them to win this debate with their faulty logic.

One last thing: It is a myth that Federer was mentally weaker than Nadal and Djokovic. It's total nonsense! lol

Silentchimera said:

This is not a GOAT debate thread, it is a discussion about the meaning of greatness to each individual. This is an example of discussing context (global outreach, era/conditions, competition all relevant context of statistics) that contribute to the whole package of greatness (to me). This is only a small fraction of relevant context to me! I wrote this in 20 minutes... My beliefs and opinions of what greatness means are up for debate. This is so I can become greater as an individual. We should not decide our values by popular opinion, but this tells me my belief's and opinions are widely shared (unlike many suggest).

(Poll below post) I decided to google a poll of the greatest sportsmen of all time. This is the first poll I opened and was conducted when Djokovic already had 24 majors. Federer is No. 10. He is ranked right next to Pele Lebron, Bo Jackson, a bit above Messi and a bit below Michael Phelps! No other male tennis player made the Top 50... (Djokovic, Rafa, Sampras should be there (I think)).

I looked at a few other recent polls for greatest sportsmen hurriedly and they all had Federer at the top for tennis and near the top out of all sports like the poll i linked. This could be an American biased poll, so it could be pro America biased. Federer is the only male tennis player on the list. Djokovic is very far from being the consensus GOAT in tennis (and never will be).

If your only arguments are the numbers, it rules you out automatically! Numbers alone clearly do not define sporting greatness, in the minds of the people, the sport exists to serve in the first place! Those who argue otherwise: Wouldn't even have their tennis wiki stats, to cite constantly (without context), if the matches were not relevant context!

Federer has plenty of arguments to still be your tennis GOAT, despite what many would try to have you believe. Apparently, nobody cares about Djokovic's Top 10 wins over 90's gen (Or Djokovic's supposedly "strong" competition from players older than him that were from Federer's era/generational talent. Players that Federer also played when they were his age, or when they were younger than he was! Just like me!) Federer clearly had the toughest competition out of the Big 3 (it's extremely difficult to argue otherwise!).

Let's also not forget that Federer built his game to dominate, in a transitional era, where the conditions were changing rapidly! That versatile game with his one-handed backhand won him 11/16 majors in his record peak age stretch and 16/27 majors with a career grand slam in his record prime age stretch. He managed records like 237 consecutive weeks at No.1, 18/19 consecutive finals, 23 consecutive semis, 5 straight Wimbledons and US Opens, the second channel slam since Bjorn Borg, 3 majors a year 3 times, all majors finals reached in a year 3 times, 24 straight finals won, 65 and 56 consecutive matches won on grass and hardcourt respectively, 7 consecutive finals won including his first final reached, 4 consecutive finals on his worst surface...(link insane win % during peak/prime stretches) and many more records (that are taking too long to list) and feats during his record prime stretch.

To me, that clearly indicates: Federer has the greatest peak and prime by the numbers! I love Federer's streak records. They were always his best records to me. This was because they were the most exciting to witness. His records are simply amazing! This was dominance that has never been seen before. There are different numbers people should look at, besides total major count. That is if they want more than a shallow interpretation of a players career! The absolute fixation with total major count isnt healthy and doesn't do a great sport the justice it deserves. He still won 20 slams! 6 more than the old record he broke! He has very strong losing efforts that would easily win slams the last 6 years (he was losing very close matches to Peak Djokovic and Nadal in his post prime/ late prime!)

Federer set all of these records I listed at peak and prime age. This is the age that players almost always are at their best. The data shows this hasnt changed in recent times. The best players are aware of the aging curve. They use historical data that is good at predicting future performance based on age. It makes sense to me he didn't win as much, when he started leaving prime age. At this time conditions stabilised to support pure baseliners that were younger than him like Nadal and Djokovic.

Ladies and gentlemen, Federer is the tennis GOAT who came from the "strong" era (to me).

Those other two players are still pretty great though I guess..

Nah, they are amazingly great players! (I didn't even talk about Federer's playstyle yet! (Probably my favourite thing about Roger!) His aura, composure, discipline, work ethic....I can't see the mental inferiority to the other Big 3 at all! He plays a high risk/reward game that requires perfect execution. This is totally different to being able to relax into longer rallies... Much, much, more relevant context to discuss! https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...sports-star-michael-jordan-messi-ronaldo/amp/ https://www.givemesport.com/greatest-athletes-of-all-time/#bo-jackson-american-football-and-baseball https://www.thetoptens.com/sports/athletes/ https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/best-athletes-of-all-time

Click to expand...

Fantastic post. Federer dominated the sport more than any before and after him and did it with a tiny racket, OHBH playing an attacking, all court brand of tennis. Great stuff.

Djokovic records have this weird feel of “last man standing”, “inflation”, “sub par competition.” Guy has cleaned up the 90s loser field who have 2 slams between them.

fedfan24 said:

Fantastic post. Federer dominated the sport more than any before and after him and did it with a tiny racket, OHBH playing an attacking, all court brand of tennis. Great stuff.

Djokovic records have this weird feel of “last man standing”, “inflation”, “sub par competition.” Guy has cleaned up the 90s loser field who have 2 slams between them.

Click to expand...

Federer was getting disrespected! This is the real debate. These people live in fantasy land! Looks like all of these posters run away when I call them out on their bias! Loyal fan? I wonder why? I have to go. I'll leave this up to others now... (edits in above posts)

Silentchimera said:

Objective(no context): How can you debate: 1+1 = 2? Greatness has subjectivity by definition (context). I've been through the consequences of using opposite word definitions already. Everything has been explained more than clearly enough so... To enter a debate about greatness: The real definition must be used... Greatness(subjective) = Greatness. Not fantasy definitions that have opposite meanings lol. Last post on this... Using: Greatness(objective) = More Insignificant! The opposite of greatness! Come back to reality if you want to debate in reality... Until then (for you): Federer is the GOAT!

Click to expand...

i think you should ask for your money back for the philosophy course you’re taking this semester

It aint djokovic. That’s for sure, brother.

Silentchimera said:

Irrelevant! Greatness is ALWAYS subjective! It doesn't matter what context you apply to greatness, it is always subjective! Unless you want it to mean MOST INSIGNIFICANT! You cannot choose your own definition, to support your bias, whenever you want.

Click to expand...

Mayweather for me is a little rat who stands no chance against heavyweights and so no matter how skill the rat is pound for pound, he is still a rat. So I dont have to rate him at all. I live in reality, not in an imaginary world where IFs and BUTs prevail over what happened.

Anyway, this thread of yours is the biggest troll thread I've seen here, so many spam comments, you are spamming in you own thread on greatness. 14 of the of the 15 posts from post number 224 to 238 are yours ... LOL.... 14 out of 15 posts..... Are you speaking to yourself ??? .... So much effort to defend Federer... give it a rest.

FlaredButt said:

i think you should ask for your money back for the philosophy course you’re taking this semester

Click to expand...

(Accept real logic FlaredButt)

The opposite of GREATEST is: MOST INSIGNIFICANT!

To those that can't debate: (People Using an Opposite Definition of Greatness!): Federer is (i believe) the GOAT! (for you and me in reality!)

Razer said:

Mayweather for me is a little rat who stands no chance against heavyweights and so no matter how skill the rat is pound for pound, he is still a rat. So I dont have to rate him at all. I live in reality, not in an imaginary world where IFs and BUTs prevail over what happened.

Anyway, this thread of yours is the biggest troll thread I've seen here, so many spam comments, you are spamming in you own thread on greatness. 14 of the of the 15 posts from post number 224 to 238 are yours ... LOL.... 14 out of 15 posts..... Are you speaking to yourself ??? .... So much effort to defend Federer... give it a rest.

Click to expand...

(Retract your BS Razer and I wont go so far) Better to have emotion than ask a computer to think for me (like you) lol.
To those that can't debate: (People Using an Opposite Definition of Greatness!): Federer is (i believe) the GOAT! (for you and me in reality!)

(outdated, see future updates) This is not a GOAT debate thread, it is a discussion about the meaning of greatness to each individual. This is an example of discussing context (global outreach, era/conditions, competition all relevant context of statistics) that contribute to the whole package of greatness (to me). This is only a small fraction of relevant context to me.

My beliefs and opinions of what greatness means are up for debate. This is so I can become greater as an individual. We should not decide our values by popular opinion, but this tells me my belief's and opinions are widely shared (unlike many suggest!). We need to be able to challenge our bias and discuss context.

I decided to google some polls of the greatest sportsmen of all time. This is the first poll I opened and was conducted when Djokovic already had 24 majors. Federer Top 10. Federer is usually Top 10, and as high up as Top 7. He is one of the immortal GOAT sportsmen that ever lived! (let alone tennis!) He is ranked right next to Pele, Lebron, Bo Jackson, Messi, Ronaldo, Usain Bolt, Jesse Owens and a bit below Michael Phelps! Usually little mention of Djokovic or Nadal on many lists of Top 50. (sorry to offend!) Federer transcended tennis to a completely different level of greatness! Djokovic is nowhere near the consensus tennis GOAT. (and never will be!)

If posters want to play with numbers, I have better ones lol. If your only arguments are the numbers, it rules you out automatically! It doesn't matter anyway, numbers alone, clearly do not define sporting greatness, in the minds of the people, the sport exists to serve in the first place! Those who argue otherwise: Wouldn't even have their tennis wiki stats, to cite constantly (without context), if the matches were not relevant context!

Federer has plenty of arguments to still be your tennis GOAT, despite what many would try to have you believe. Apparently, nobody cares about Djokovic's faulty Top 10 wins over 90's gen, faulty ELO stats. (Or Djokovic's supposedly "strong" competition from players older than him that were from Federer's era/generational talent. Players that Federer also played when they were his age, or when they were younger than he was!) Federer clearly had the toughest competition out of the Big 3 (it's extremely difficult to argue otherwise!).

Let's also not forget that Federer built his game to dominate, in a transitional era, where the conditions were changing rapidly! That versatile game with his one-handed backhand won him 11/16 majors in his record peak age stretch and 16/27 majors with a career grand slam in his record prime age stretch.

He managed records like 237 consecutive weeks at No.1, 18/19 consecutive finals, 23 consecutive semis, 36 consecutive QF, 5 straight Wimbledons and US Opens, the second channel slam since Bjorn Borg, 3 majors a year 3 times, all majors finals reached in a year 3 times, 24 straight finals won, 65 and 56 consecutive matches won on grass and hardcourt respectively, 7 consecutive finals won including his first final reached, 4 consecutive finals on his worst surface...(link insane win % during peak/prime stretches) and many more records (that are taking too long to list) and feats during his record prime stretch.

To me, that clearly indicates: Federer has the greatest peak and prime by the numbers! That's what matters most to me! That's what I saw for myself! I don't ask chatGPT! lol. I don't care about weak slams mid 30's! (much lower level)

Federer had extremely tough competition from younger ATG's when he was old. Federer played tennis from a different planet during his peak! It doesn't matter who you put in front of him lol. He would destroy every field! I love Federer's streak records. They were always his best records to me. This was because they were the most exciting to witness!

His records are simply amazing! This was dominance that has never been seen before. There are different numbers people should look at, besides total major count. That is if they want more than a shallow interpretation of a players career! The absolute fixation with total major count isnt healthy and doesn't do a great sport the justice it deserves.

Federer still won 20 slams! 6 more than the old record he broke! Oldest No.1 at not far off 37, making and almost winning a final (losing with huge age disadvantage against Djokovic with matchpoints) at Wimbledon at almost 38. He dominated his kryptonite late in his career (5yrs younger!) He has very strong losing efforts that would easily win slams the last 6 years (He was losing very close matches to Peak Djokovic and Nadal in his post prime/late prime! Huge Age Disadvantage!) I don't need career slams/weeks No.1 over weak fields (lower level is very noticeable!). Federer took his RG the only real chance he had!

Federer set all of these crazy streak/stretch records I listed earlier on at peak and prime age. This is the age that players almost always are at their best. The data shows this hasn't changed in recent times. The best players are aware of the aging curve. They use historical data that is good at predicting future performance based on age. It makes sense to me he didn't win as much, when he started leaving prime age. At this time conditions stabilised to support pure baseliners that were younger than him like Nadal and Djokovic! He still took the record weeks at No.1 ranking at almost 31 from peak Djokovic and Nadal. 2011 RG, 2012 W, 2011 USO were all epic fights at an age Djokovic was burnt out in 2017-2018!

I didn't even talk about Federer's playstyle yet! This is probably my favourite thing about Roger! GOAT forehand, serve not far off Sampras level, impeccable footwork, athleticism, impeccable volleys/overhead/smash/backhand/lob, all court game, incredible speed, explosiveness, GOAT half volleys, tweeners over Djokovic's head that he applauds...beauty in tennis form! His aura, composure, keeping me constantly up at night in awe (on edge) in/with his matches, the emotion (fans too), his discipline, consistency, crowd always loved him, work ethic, humanity, morality, inspiration, people lived through Roger's game (not his stats!), freakish reflexes...

I can't see the mental inferiority to the other Big 3 at all! He plays a high risk/reward game that requires perfect execution (perfect for dominance in changing conditions (versatility). This is totally different to being able to relax into longer rallies... Much, much, more relevant context to discuss!) Until then, get out of here lol. You have 2-3 stats (totally laughable!) Ladies and gentlemen, Federer is the tennis GOAT who came from the "strong" era (to me)! That's why I can talk about him with passion! You wanted to avoid this discussion the subjectivity of greatness demands? Embarrassing...

To enter a debate about greatness: The real definition must be used...

Greatness(subjective) = Greatness. Not fantasy definitions that have opposite meanings lol. Using: Greatness(objective) = More Insignificant! The opposite of greatness! Come back to reality if you want to debate in reality... Until then (for you): Federer is the GOAT! long post, but it came out easily...

Would like to hear some context discussed by Rafa fans. The Djokovic bias needs balancing out. Rafa > Djokovic in terms of greatness. Very strong arguments can be made for Rafa.

.

Genie Of the Bank said:

Greatness is when people sing songs about you .

Click to expand...

Thos one is even better

Silentchimera said:

What is the context of the discussion? I will assume you are talking about: The Greatest Of All Time tennis player statistically. Is this what you implied? If so, no I don't believe this. That would be Federer (i think).

Click to expand...

Wrong.
Achieveing less in sport doesn't make you greater.
Your context is fallacious, making your interpretation factually untrue.