The thread title is incorrect. That' s not the case the posted article makes, as per my quote above.
Regardless. There is no way to compare in absolutes but if it's money earned or majors won Federer is not the greatest. Useless article, useless thread (3rd on the subject after Wimbledon final).
Could growth hormones have something to do with his popularity?
Regardless. There is no way to compare in absolutes but if it's money earned or majors won Federer is not the greatest. Useless article, useless thread (3rd on the subject after Wimbledon final).
It's obviously about accomplishments and Federer's accomplishments in tennis, when you consider "trophies", consistency and longevity in the sport, are simply greater than those of Woods and Nicklaus.
They are greater to you because you identify with tennis much more strongly. Not an objective view.
Jahangir Khan...wheelchair...
Useless post, cant even comprehend the differences.
How do you identify with wheelchair tennis or squash then? since you mentioned the records over Federer?
They are greater to you because you identify with tennis much more strongly. Not an objective view.
Yes I agree. When you're faced with facts you cannot refute denial is the best option. There are numerous pro sports where athletes achieved dominance far greater than Federer's. If you cannot comprehend that then there's little hope more facts will help.
I'm an analyst and I don't have a difficulty identifying an outstanding performance over a period of time.
Did you even bother to read the article? And the case has also been made in that other ESPN article. There's nothing subjective about the stats presented. Woods might have had a case when he had 12 majors to Federer's 10 but not anymore. Federer not only has more slams but has also shown far more consistency throughout his career. Nicklaus has 18 slams but it took him 24 years to achieve that.
The article is made for the likes of you, I would never waste my time reading that drivel. Federer is playing tennis and Jack was playing golf. If a comparison has to be drawn then there are other athletes more dominant in their sports (as I grow tired of saying). If Federer wins 2 more Slams he can say he is one up on old Jack. But until then he isn't (again if you get into the sensationalist activity of comparing cross-sport).
DoubleDuce mate, I think I've said enough. You have people (women's high jump for example) who have won more than 140 competitions in a row. I don't mind your ignorance, but please don't insinuate that when we are saying a tennis player is the greatest pro athlete of all, it is you who must choose who he is compared with.
It is not me who chooses who he is compared with, but I make the case that it is the popularity of a sport that makes it comparable to tennis. A sport like squash takes much less space than a tennis court, yet there is more tennis courts around where I live than there is squash players. That makes a domination by the likes of jahangir khan much easier. Same goes with your wheelchair numbers.
Mr. Russel, you are playing a numbers game where it's not about numbers only. When you consider the popularity and the level of competition in any of these sports you mentioned and yet look at the numbers only then its also ingnorance in your part.
The article is made for the likes of you, I would never waste my time reading that drivel. Federer is playing tennis and Jack was playing golf. If a comparison has to be drawn then there are other athletes more dominant in their sports (as I grow tired of saying). If Federer wins 2 more Slams he can say he is one up on old Jack. But until then he isn't (again if you get into the sensationalist activity of comparing cross-sport).
You don't want to compare but you still argue that Nicklaus is greater than Federer. And you conveniently base your opinion on slams only while ignoring other important stats pertaining to consistency. Sorry mate, but you don't get to choose which stat is convenient for you to argue your point and reject everything else as subjective or "drivel". It just doesn't work that way... That's silly anti-debating 101.
I agree. One extra point on Phelps. Swimming per se is right down near the bottom of the scale in terms of overall skills required to be great. It's one of the ultimate rote-learning, brute repetition sports.As great as Gretzky and Jordan were, please stop comparing team sports to individual sports. It's a bit silly.
Woods does not rank higher than Federer. Plus, Nicklaus is the greatest golfer, not Woods.
Phelps is up there but one problem with swimming is that there are very few international competitions....
You don't want to compare but you still argue that Nicklaus is greater than Federer. And you conveniently base your opinion on slams only while ignoring other important stats pertaining to consistency. Sorry mate, but you don't get to choose which stat is convenient for you to argue your point and reject everything else as subjective or "drivel". It just doesn't work that way... That's silly anti-debating 101.
The article is made for the likes of you, I would never waste my time reading that drivel. Federer is playing tennis and Jack was playing golf. If a comparison has to be drawn then there are other athletes more dominant in their sports (as I grow tired of saying). If Federer wins 2 more Slams he can say he is one up on old Jack. But until then he isn't (again if you get into the sensationalist activity of comparing cross-sport).
there is no best athlete of all sports.
Yes there is. MIchael Phelps. It will be hundreds of years before anyone does things in any sport that he has done. He is literally from another planet.
Yes there is. MIchael Phelps. It will be hundreds of years before anyone does things in any sport that he has done. He is literally from another planet.
meh..olympic athletes I take with a grain of salt nowadays.
I dont want to be burned in 10 years when he wear USADA break another doping scandal.
Jahangir is very much in that discussion... The only reason why some people discard him is that they don't know the sport because it is less marketable than tennis. Do you seriously think that given the opportunity, many athletes would have been able to emulate 555 wins in a row? To me Federer is very close to Jahangir and Jansher Khan in terms of achievements, and he's in fact the Jansher Khan of tennis.Classic example of a spin post.
Make it about dominance, find more domination, prove your point. So simplistic it makes you laugh. Jahangir khan is not even in the discussion of greatest atheletes in history, and certainly no wheelchair. It's just interesting how people dig out names to prove a point that's not even close to what's being discussed.
A key reason I don't consider the achievements of the Khans in the same light as Federer's for example is that in the 1980s as few as 10 squash players globally played the sport full time.Jahangir is very much in that discussion... The only reason why some people discard him is that they don't know the sport because it is less marketable than tennis. Do you seriously think that given the opportunity, many athletes would have been able to emulate 555 wins in a row?..
To win one Major Jack had to beat what 60? 70? 80? people over 4 days.
No he doesn't. Since when does a golfer play against one opponent over the course of a major? And, if you really want to spout out this doo-doo, the winner of a major in tennis has to out play well over 100, and has to carry his own racquet.
Jeez, where do you people even come up with these arguments, as if golf is even a sport.
.They have this wonderful contraption called a scorebord, which illustrates how each player's performance measures up against that of everyone else. To win the whole shabang your performance must beat that of everyone else, not just of one person at a time. As far as golf being a sport, I'll leave the schooling to others.
.
I hope you are enjoying your spin Mr. Russel, because I am.
Upsets in Golf are as rare of those in Tennis. That wonderful contrapion can illustrate 500 more players and the reulsts would be the same. Yet in tennis because of one match played one time there is a greater chance of an upset, which we saw happen two weeks ago by a 100th ranked palyer.
I dont mind your ignorance when you equal athletism required to play tennis vs golf or suash, but that wonderful scoreboard is full names who drive golf carts around the grass while tennis players average 5 hrs a day work out when they are not playing.
Fed is truly great, but perhaps you should look up Jansher and Jahangir Khan...
This right there sums up your worth as a contributor on these boards. Squash to tennis is like decathlon to chess.
That #17 must have really burned you up on the inside. If there's a # 18 you might need some counseling! LOL.
They have this wonderful contraption called a scorebord, which illustrates how each player's performance measures up against that of everyone else. To win the whole shabang your performance must beat that of everyone else, not just of one person at a time. As far as golf being a sport, I'll leave the schooling to others.
The best in all sports is Michael Phelps by far. He is doing things things that wont be done in swimming or even the Olympics probably for another 1000 years. His dominance is far more whole and unprecedented than Federer's or anyone else I can think of.
Wrong.
A golfer plays against the course and hopes his score is better than other players. He is not playing against an opponent, who could alter his performance by playing defense or offense against him.
Well thanks for pointing out my worht as a contributor, I wonder what that make yours.
" decathlon to chess" ? Lets not make it too romantic Mr. Russel, you stick to that " analyst" role for now. Squash is known to be one of the safest games to play because of least number of injuries reported relative to other sports such as tennis. Way less shoulder and knee injuries, which should tell you about the difference in stress and also the fintenss required to play the two games.
I can see you are in the right place to practice your writing because the arrogance in your posts can really benefit from it.
Thats quite surprising considering another player has made Fed his pigeon his entire career.
Other greats weren't exposed by their main rivals to the extent Roger has been.
Gretzky dominated his rivals, Jordan dominated his rivals.. Ali bested his rivals more times then not, Pele bested his rivals.. Fed? No..
Atheltic wise?? Don't make me laugh.. Fed isn't even the most athletic ever in his own sport much less ALL SPORTS
What a disservice to Federer to compare him to golfers.
+1.Unlike you I've played the sports you are talking about and I can tell you squash requires extreme conditioning and responsiveness, the second being a requisite only in doubles tennis and even there not even close. Your report of injuries has more to do with the highly publicised way (higher ranked) tennis players' injuries are announced to the public. Obviously a sport with a smaller global audience will seem to someone (who hasn't a clue what squash is going by earlier remarks) to not cause injuries.
Indeed, golf is probably the only sport that is even more technical than tennis.Golf is one of the few sports, if not the only sport, that requires more skill to play than tennis.
Messi is not even the best soccer player ever (Maradona, Pele or DiStefano would be that). Great article though. I would say its a 4 way tie, between Michael Jordan, Phelps, Ali and Federer