What would Federer choose if given this choice?

Federer20042006 said:

You're kidding yourself if you think a gold in singles at the Olympics isn't huge. You seem to be going off ATP point value...just ask the players what its value is. Many of them consider it as important as winning a slam.

Click to expand...

An OG medal have no place in the same sentence as a title from a Major.

Federer20042006 said:

I'll bet most of them would even take it over the Australian Open, in fact.

Click to expand...

You are dead wrong about that one. I am sure, although I am not a Pro tennis player.

Federer20042006 said:

Federer's gold in doubles doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight, and a silver medal in singles for someone of his caliber isn't a particularly big accomplishment.

Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand the value of an OG medal.

The concept of the Olympic games is such, that EVERY gold medal is a sign of sporting excellence. It puts the country of the player on the map for the world to see. This is not in anyway influenced by the number of people, who get the job done. Phelps has won a lot of his OG medals as a result from a team effort, where he wasn't particularly strong. This doesn't mean, that they are less valuable.

Federer20042006 said:

Winning 19 slams instead of 18...meh. Even if he got the most in the open era of two different slams, it wouldn't be nearly as salient a fact about him as saying that he has the "Career Golden Slam."

Click to expand...

Career Golden Slam is some journalist invention. As is Serena Slam and whatnot.

The truth is, that before 2008 a lot of the tennis Pros just didn't care about the Olympics.

About the continuing debate about 18 vs. 19.

The people, who say it is not a bigger deal than an OG or a positive H2H are kidding themselves.

How many people have such numbers in the Open era?

It is enough to think about what it takes to win even one Major, to be able to appreciate the winning of another later in someone's career. Look at what happened, when Federer won his 7th Wimbledon, beating two of the top 4 players (the defending champion amongst them). Winning a Major in the later stages of someone's career maybe considered more difficult than the same thing happening at someone's peak.

Actually. People, who say, that 18 vs 19 is not a big deal are comitting the same sin, that they accuse the others of comitting - they are busy with excessive counting. Clearly, for them 18 or 19 is ammere number. Majors are Majors, and no amount of H2H or Olympic BS will change that fact. The bigger the boy the better his Major title collection.

What people don't realize is that the difference between 18 and 19 is a lot more than the difference between, say, 7 and 8. 17 Grand Slams is insanity. 18 Slams would be insanityX2. It's not a big deal for a player who has won 2 or 3 Slams to wins a 3rd or 4th. But for a player who had won 17 Slams to win an 18th or 19th one is all the more staggering, because they're in uncharted territory as it is and they're likely not in their 20s anymore. Saying, "17 or 18 or 19, what's the difference, he already has the record," is craziness, plain and simple. 99% of pro players would kill to win that one Slam.

Tennis_Hands said:

The concept of the Olympic games is such, that EVERY gold medal is a sign of sporting excellence. It puts the country of the player on the map for the world to see. This is not in anyway influenced by the number of people, who get the job done. Phelps has won a lot of his OG medals as a result from a team effort, where he wasn't particularly strong. This doesn't mean, that they are less valuable.

Click to expand...

It's not about the importance of the Olympics themselves - it's how tennis views them. And they're considered by many players to be as valuable as a Grand Slam these days. That's what the players themselves say, and that's what matters.

Career Golden Slam is some journalist invention. As is Serena Slam and whatnot.

Click to expand...

What it represents isn't some journalist invention. Steffi Graf's 1988 season is the standard in women's tennis for a reason.

The truth is, that before 2008 a lot of the tennis Pros just didn't care about the Olympics.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and before 2004, a lot of tennis pros didn't care about the Australian Open.

They care now. A lot. And the Olympics aren't going anywhere. With each passing Olympics games, tennis will have a larger pool of winners and a richer Olympic history.

About the continuing debate about 18 vs. 19.

The people, who say it is not a bigger deal than an OG or a positive H2H are kidding themselves.

How many people have such numbers in the Open era?

It is enough to think about what it takes to win even one Major, to be able to appreciate the winning of another later in someone's career. Look at what happened, when Federer won his 7th Wimbledon, beating two of the top 4 players (the defending champion amongst them). Winning a Major in the later stages of someone's career maybe considered more difficult than the same thing happening at someone's peak.

Click to expand...

Then the media claims that said player is a better player than he was when he was younger, the competition just got stronger, and they use the slam win/wins to argue their case.

Actually. People, who say, that 18 vs 19 is not a big deal are comitting the same sin, that they accuse the others of comitting - they are busy with excessive counting. Clearly, for them 18 or 19 is ammere number. Majors are Majors, and no amount of H2H or Olympic BS will change that fact. The bigger the boy the better his Major title collection.

Click to expand...

I think Federer would rather have 18 and Olympic gold in singles than 19 and only the medals he has. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it.

Prisoner of Birth said:

What people don't realize is that the difference between 18 and 19 is a lot more than the difference between, say, 7 and 8. 17 Grand Slams is insanity. 18 Slams would be insanityX2. It's not a big deal for a player who has won 2 or 3 Slams to wins a 3rd or 4th. But for a player who had won 17 Slams to win an 18th or 19th one is all the more staggering, because they're in uncharted territory as it is and they're likely not in their 20s anymore. Saying, "17 or 18 or 19, what's the difference, he already has the record," is craziness, plain and simple. 99% of pro players would kill to win that one Slam.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Federer20042006 said:

Variety/completeness counts in tennis. It's what gives Federer the edge over Pete Sampras.

Click to expand...

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)

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

It's not about the importance of the Olympics themselves - it's how tennis views them. And they're considered by many players to be as valuable as a Grand Slam these days. That's what the players themselves say, and that's what matters.




What it represents isn't some journalist invention. Steffi Graf's 1988 season is the standard in women's tennis for a reason.



Yeah, and before 2004, a lot of tennis pros didn't care about the Australian Open.

They care now. A lot. And the Olympics aren't going anywhere. With each passing Olympics games, tennis will have a larger pool of winners and a richer Olympic history.




Then the media claims that said player is a better player than he was when he was younger, the competition just got stronger, and they use the slam win/wins to argue their case.



I think Federer would rather have 18 and Olympic gold in singles than 19 and only the medals he has. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it.

Click to expand...

I won't respond point for point, but the bolded part better be a joke. Unless you're saying people didn't start caring about the Australian until Federer won it the first time and trying to relate it to Nadal winning the OG. The AO is a legit GS now, and has been since the mid to late 80's. Remember the Olympics is only once every 4 years. Completely different from a slam even though both the AO and the Olympics have only been "legitimate" for about 25 years.

The Olympics will grow, you are correct about that, but it should never be put on the same level as the slams regardless what the players tell you IMO. I think its importance to the players lies more in the fact that they're playing for their country than anything else. Of course it is also nice as an individual accomplishment, but I'm inclined to agree Tennis_Hands in that the whole "Career Golden Slam" thing is a bit of a media driven term. The reason Steffi's 1988 season is the standard in womens tennis is not because she won OG (that was its first year since 1924 that it was a medal sport if I'm not mistaken), it's mostly because she won the CYGS. I think Olympic medals are more important in sports that don't get a lot of coverage and don't have a regular tour so to speak, like swimming or track and field, among numerous other things.

I think for example that if option 2 was simply 18 majors (may or may not be the FO and may or may not beat Nadal in Paris to get it) and an OG in singles, versus 19 majors, Federer would take the 19 majors option especially if you consider he would have a silver from this year, but because option 2 is pretty stacked in comparison to option 1 it's tough to pick against it.

option 1 would be more appealing if i could've had 3 majors.


I take option 2 as written, and it's not close.



if option 1 was 3 majors, I'd chose that

I think achieving Option 1 and ending his career with 19 might be slightly irritating in hindsight, "Damn und blast, If I'd only won 1 more I would have reached 20!"

I'd go for #2 to get the Olympic Gold in singles and Davis Cup.

Option 2. One more major doesnt make the difference, nobody will remember you for winning one more or not, but it will definitely be remembered if federer finally beats nadal at FO, and not to say if he wins the gold medal at age 34. Those would be the biggest achievements for him during all his carrer.

I am sure Fed wants Option 1 without any doubt. Separates him further from the crowd.

Option 2 is dumb, who cares .. Fed has already won a FO, has gold in the 187 point (750/4) tourney, H2H has no relevance, year end no 1 means nothing.. 302+ weeks is all that counts.

zagor said:

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.

Click to expand...

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,

Click to expand...

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 ).

Click to expand...

And the majority of the tennis greats didn't give a rat's ass 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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 ****s 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.

Click to expand...

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.

SStrikerR said:

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

Click to expand...

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

No , I'm not in Colorado.

Federer20042006 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Pure guesswork.

Players regularly playing into their 40s is particulary funny.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Federer20042006 said:

I'm a Federer fan, actually.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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 ass about it, it would lose the special appeal it holds for you and your ilk.

Federer20042006 said:

In terms of ranking the greats, it does.

Click to expand...

No, it simply doesn't.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes, Fed did win FO in 2009.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

Guesswork again, maybe, maybe not.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Federer20042006 said:

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 ****s are really trying to claim Sampras > Federer.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 ass about the Australian Open back in the day, either.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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 ****s are really trying to claim Sampras > Federer.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Federer20042006 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

ibbi said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL, self-ownage.

You have to ask him.

Tennis_Hands said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Option 2 is a no-brainer tbh.

RF-17-GOAT said:

Option 2 is a no-brainer tbh.

Click to expand...

Some people think 2 majors > the other results.

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.

Tennis_Hands said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

*Sparkle* said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?"

Nathaniel_Near said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

*Sparkle* said:

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?"

Click to expand...

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.

Tennis_Hands said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Tennis_Hands said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

*Sparkle* said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

*Sparkle* said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

*Sparkle* said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Prisoner of Birth said:

LOL, self-ownage.

Click to expand...

Lol I noticed that too.

If you give me three Slams with option one, with Fed winning 1 more AO, 1 more Wimbledon and 1 more US Open, in 3 different years, than I'd pick that one.

20 slams
5 AO
8 W
6 USO
12 slam winning years

+ he'll play at least 3 more years for me to enjoy him.

With the two slams, I don't see it being hard. I pick option 2 anyday.