Rod Laver claims Roger Federer is the best player of his generation

TheTruth · Oct 12, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
That is what happens when the desperate Federer Fringe steers clear of glaring shortcomings on Federer's path. At all costs, Nadal (and anyone else) must be tossed in an obvious spin machine--the only way Federer to be their false GOAT.

Seriously, all of the courts are so slow benefitting Nadal only.

The hard courts are slow and must be broken down into slow hard, medium hard, fast hard, what?

The clay is skewed even though Federer grew up on clay.

It's a bad match up, yeah right.

My point was simple.

Since Federer is good on hard courts he should have been able to balance out the H2H, and he didn't. That's his fault.

They just get too uptight at the thought that someone can think that Federer isn't the GOAT. And to many he isn't.

I don't go around proclaiming Nadal as the GOAT, because he isn't, but then, neither is Federer in my estimation, and never has been.
.
It's OK to say that, because everyone has a right to their opinions.

monfed · Oct 12, 2013

TheTooth said:
Seriously, all of the courts are so slow benefitting Nadal only.

The hard courts are slow and must be broken down into slow hard, medium hard, fast hard, what?

The clay is skewed even though Federer grew up on clay.

It's a bad match up, yeah right.

My point was simple.

Since Federer is good on hard courts he should have been able to balance out the H2H, and he didn't. That's his fault.

They just get too uptight at the thought that someone can think that Federer isn't the GOAT. And to many he isn't.

I don't go around proclaiming Nadal as the GOAT, because he isn't, but then, neither is Federer in my estimation, and never has been.
.
It's OK to say that, because everyone has a right to their opinions.

Yea just like you wanna break down clay into blue clay, high altitude clay, slow clay, fast clay. :lol:

Not proclaiming Ralph as GOAT doesn't give you brownie points since he simply isn't but spending all day on TW trying to convince people that Fed can't be GOAT because of your own bias is just as bad or worse.

Death Master · Oct 12, 2013

last time I checked they were still playing tennis on clay.

believe it or not but it is tennis and they do play tennis on clay.

octogon · Oct 13, 2013

TMF said:
Roger was crowned player of the decade at the end of 2009.
http://tvnz.co.nz/tennis-news/federer-named-tennis-player-decade-3313932

For 2010-2019 we don't know for sure who will win the player of the decade award. Nadal is 2 slams ahead of Nole in this decade, but there's 6 more years left in this decade and that is a lot of tennis left. Nole has a shot to win for this decade.

Manny Paccquio was named fighter of the decade for 2000-2009, even though many at the time argued that Floyd Mayweather was better than him. Around this period, many people were seriously claiming Pac would go down in the All-Time-Great ranks ahead of Mayweather.

Today, nobody outside the Philipines would seriously claim Paccquio will go down as a greater boxer than Mayweather. Things change pretty damned fast in sport. Pac can keep his "fighter of the decade" awards, but in the grand scheme of things they are worthless. Mayweather is easily going down as the best of their generation, and ahead of Pac in any boxing GOAT debate.

Same deal for Fed and Nadal. Fed is the Pacqquio in this equation. The beloved figure who picked up all the awards and acclodaes, while Mayweather just ewent about his buisness of proving himself greater (like Nadal).

TMF · Oct 13, 2013

octogon said:
Manny Paccquio was named fighter of the decade for 2000-2009, even though many at the time argued that Floyd Mayweather was better than him. Around this period, many people were seriously claiming Pac would go down in the All-Time-Great ranks ahead of Mayweather.

Today, nobody outside the Philipines would seriously claim Paccquio will go down as a greater boxer than Mayweather. Things change pretty damned fast in sport. Pac can keep his "fighter of the decade" awards, but in the grand scheme of things they are worthless. Mayweather is easily going down as the best of their generation, and ahead of Pac in any boxing GOAT debate.

Same deal for Fed and Nadal. Fed is the Pacqquio in this equation. The beloved figure who picked up all the awards and acclodaes, while Mayweather just ewent about his buisness of proving himself greater (like Nadal).

That's got nothing to do with tennis from 2000-2009. Federer performance/result is the undisputed king of tennis. Nadal with only 6 slams and only 50 weeks at #1 is good for 2nd best player. Even that results in 90s, 80s or 70s that would only be good for 2nd place.

Nadal has a chance to earn player of the decade from 2010-2019. The only player that has a shot to take it is Nole.

TMF · Oct 13, 2013

TheTruth said:
You're trying to twist my words (as usual). I said Federer being good on hard court should have been able to balance out the H2H nullifying the clay is skewed argument.

Nadal did his part on his favorite surface and Federer only broke even on his hard court. That's what I said. Go back and read it, rather than trying to spin it.

Your first sentence I never said. It's another distortion from you.

I can't count how many times I've seen you post that Nadal-Davydenko stat.

Have you forgotten these stats?

Fed vs. Rafter 0-3
Fed vs. Brands 1-1
Fed vs. Stakhosky 1-1
Fed vs. Delbonis 0-1

And what is your point?

Are you believe better h2h means better player than say it. If you don't why bother to even bring it up.

TMF · Oct 13, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
TMF said:

You don't like "we"? How about I'll just say 99.9999% of the people disagree with you claim a GS is must to qualify for goat, or it's the be-all and end-all. We did try, and we try very hard to tell you that one achievement can't overtake a player's entire career achievement, but you wouldn't listen.

You didn't answer my question. It was either a "yes" or "no".

Does the rocket finally convinced you that the GS is NOT above and beyond everything a player have achieved in his career?

If you're convinced, I suggest you change your avatar.

Click to expand...

There is no"we," or a 99.9999%. You are--once again--posting absolute nonsense not supported by history. Only in your mind will you find any majority regarding Federer, otherwise, you would need to chase every thread trying to price together any sort of last ditch effort to give him a "greatest" status of any kind--with GOAT at the top of the list.

If you were certain, defense would not be necessary.

You should not make it so easy to expose your beliefs.

Laver now stands in direct opposition to you and the little Federer Fringe who argued for years...up to this day that Federer is your imagined GOAT. YOU of all people cannot flip the script to pretend you accept anything other than an all-time crown for the unqualified Federer.

Give me list of posters that they support your claim about the winning a GS is a must for a goat? Just as I thought, you can't list any supporter because you know no one supports you. My point still stands, "we" have tried to tell you for umpteen times that it's ridiculous to say a GS(1 year achievement) triumph entire career.

This is what you said about Roger.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
No Grand Slam. No GOAT.

Laver doesn't support you. He and Budge won the GS and he said none can't be a goat because you can't compare era. Now that you know how Laver feel, do you now agree that THE GS IS NOT THE END ALL DEBATE FOR GOAT ?

octogon · Oct 13, 2013

TMF said:
That's got nothing to do with tennis from 2000-2009. Federer performance/result is the undisputed king of tennis. Nadal with only 6 slams and only 50 weeks at #1 is good for 2nd best player. Even that results in 90s, 80s or 70s that would only be good for 2nd place.

Nadal has a chance to earn player of the decade from 2010-2019. The only player that has a shot to take it is Nole.

My point is, that winning "player of the decade" is a nice distinction, but it doesn't make you GOAT. Fed dominated a 3 to 4 year stretch with relatively weak competition, with his greatest rival (Nadal) still an immature player off Clay.

Mayweather has 4 fights left. He could potentially be retired by 2015. Which means despite being considered the greatesest boxer of his era (and now being talked about seriously in boxing circles as the GOAT), he'll never have won a "boxer of the decade" accolade.

Yet, he'll be ranked ahead of his contemporary, Pacciquio, who did. In the long term, I think Mayweather would prefer to be remembered as the greatest of his generation, than win an award that has no long term relevance to his standing.

Nadal doesn't need a player of the decade distinction to be GOAT. He just needs that magic number....17!

TMF · Oct 13, 2013

octogon said:
My point is, that winning "player of the decade" is a nice distinction, but it doesn't make you GOAT. Fed dominated a 3 to 4 year stretch with relatively weak competition, with his greatest rival (Nadal) still an immature player off Clay.

Mayweather has 4 fights left. He could potentially be retired by 2015. Which means despite being considered the greatesest boxer of his era (and now being talked about seriously in boxing circles as the GOAT), he'll never have won a "boxer of the decade" accolade.

Yet, he'll be ranked ahead of his contemporary, Pacciquio, who did. In the long term, I think Mayweather would prefer to be remembered as the greatest of his generation, than win an award that has no long term relevance to his standing.

Nadal doesn't need a player of the decade distinction to be GOAT. He just needs that magic number....17!

Weak/strong era is purely subjective and no player gain(or lose) any credit for their achievement. The only exception to take competition into account is during the pre-open era when there were 2 tour(amateur & pro).

Nadal doesn't need to win the Player of the Decade award, but for the player like Laver, Borg, Sampras and Federer won the award is nothing short of excellence and domination.

Again, the list of criteria for goat is not about a single achievement, but total slam count is the most important.

Did you read this thread?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=479913

Sartorius · Oct 13, 2013

TheTruth said:
I am counting ATP sanctioned tennis courts. That's where they play. It doesn't matter whether it's clay, grass, slow hard court, medium fast, fast, indoor, etc. That's what makes the debate circular, when people start differentiating all of the surfaces.

And not surprisingly, every time Nadal wins on a court it suddenly becomes slow and therefore Federer is excused for the "matchup" or "the clay" surface.

I don't buy it. It gets too confusing. Which of Nadal's hard court wins over Federer counts using your logic?

It doesn't matter? I completely disagree. As a fan following the sport, if you tell me to think about a h2h between two players, especially if you're arguing about who's the better tennis player, the first thing I'm going to think about is where they played those matches. So I'd say it matters. That said, of course people will differentiate the surfaces. Because there are different surfaces in tennis.

And no, not every win Nadal has over Federer was on a slow court. I also don't think that certain wins count and others don't. Every match counts.

What I believe is looking in the context of things. You for example, seem to be doing the exact opposite.

Still, I actually don't think the idea of "Nadal is better than Federer" is unlogical, unbelievable and such. You can certainly think so and make arguments for it. You can also make arguments for Fed. The h2h argument in my opinion is very refutable.

TMF · Oct 13, 2013

Of course the surfaces matter. Try to put Nadal on indoor against Sampras and then put them on clay and you will see the results is 180 degrees difference.

Povl Carstensen · Oct 13, 2013

Federer going nr 1 2 years ago sort of deflates the circular weak era argument.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 13, 2013

TMF said:
Laver doesn't support you.

Keep dreamimg. He has isolated Federer to a generation, which means he is no GOAT, and without a Grand Slam, a player cannot be the GOAT.

It is tearing your Fed-dripping mind apart, and there is nothing you can do about it.

The Dark Knight · Oct 13, 2013

TMF said:
Of course the surfaces matter. Try to put Nadal on indoor against Sampras and then put them on clay and you will see the results is 180 degrees difference.

And your point is?

TMF · Oct 13, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Keep dreamimg. He has isolated Federer to a generation, which means he is no GOAT, and no one without a Grand Slam cannot be the GOAT.

It is tearing your Fed-dripping mind apart, and there is nothing you can do about it.

It's you who's dreaming because you are the only one who believe the GS is only one criteria to qualify for goat and it's the be-all and end-all debate.

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
No Grand Slam. No GOAT.

You have no support. Not from fans, historians, commentators or anyone out there.

Povl Carstensen · Oct 14, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Keep dreamimg. He has isolated Federer to a generation, which means he is no GOAT, and no one without a Grand Slam cannot be the GOAT.

It is tearing your Fed-dripping mind apart, and there is nothing you can do about it.

Says you and who..?

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 14, 2013

TMF said:
It's you who's dreaming because you are the only one who believe the GS is only one criteria to qualify for goat and it's the be-all and end-all debate.

You have no support. Not from fans, historians, commentators or anyone out there.

Keep dreaming, if that keeps your delusion alive. 44 years and running, Laver--because of the Grand Slam--has him judged as the GOAT, meanwhile a chorus of ex-pros, et al, have kicked Your false "god" Federer to the curb--and not on the platform of GOAT. Now, he does not have a place in an all time discussion, but one of a lone generation, when the Federer Fringe (such as yourself) have trashed innumerable threads screaming his false, laughable GOAThood.

At last, the truth has hammered the final nail in the coffin of Fed-delusion.

Chew on that, kid.

Povl Carstensen · Oct 14, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
no one without a Grand Slam cannot be the GOAT.

Meaning someone without a Grand Slam can be GOAT. Why, thank you! Seems there is some purpose in debating here anyway.

Povl Carstensen · Oct 14, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
44 years and running, Laver--because of the Grand Slam--has him judged as the GOAT

Not solely, that is where you are mistaking. Who says it is a prerequisite?
Edit: Sorry you changed your mind again.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 14, 2013

Trolling over a typo....you are incredibly desperate.

....and Federer will never be seen as the GOAT, now dry your tears.

Povl Carstensen · Oct 14, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Trolling over a typo....you are incredibly desperate.

....and Federer will never be seen as the GOAT, now dry your tears.

Well he is, dry yours. And I have always admired your command of the english language, if not much else.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 14, 2013

Amusing that the Fringe holds on to a fantasy as clearly unrealistic--as unsupported by history-- as the tooth fairy.

RF20Lennon · Oct 14, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Trolling over a typo....you are incredibly desperate.

....and Federer will never be seen as the GOAT, now dry your tears.

LOL funny thing is Laver's wiki says "one of the greatest of all time" while Fed's says "Greatest of all time". You have NO SOURCE whatsoever. Laver was great but the grand slam alone is not sufficient for GOAT status.

Graf1stClass · Oct 14, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Keep dreamimg. He has isolated Federer to a generation, which means he is no GOAT, and without a Golden Slam, a player cannot be the GOAT.

It is tearing your Fed-dripping mind apart, and there is nothing you can do about it.

I also think the lack of a GS disqualifies federer.

...and the lack of adaptability....

He's GOAT in class, though.

RF20Lennon said:
RF20Lennon said:

LOL funny thing is Laver's wiki says "one of the greatest of all time" while Fed's says "Greatest of all time". You have NO SOURCE whatsoever. Laver was great but the Golden Slam alone is not sufficient for GOAT status.

Click to expand...

By itself, it's not sufficient, but it's a definite requirement to be in the discussion.

RF20Lennon · Oct 14, 2013

Graf1stClass said:
I also think the lack of a GS disqualifies federer.

...and the lack of adaptability....

He's GOAT in class, though.

By itself, it's not sufficient, but it's a definite requirement to be in the discussion.

not necessarily. Federer has more slams as a whole and better records! Laver does not have an olympic medal, a world tour final, a masters or any of that. So you can't really compare them but if we were to, Fed has better numbers.

RF20Lennon · Oct 14, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
...also covers the intellectually suspect Wikipedia, where users can add or subtract from entries at will. It is no wonder Fed fans attempt to use such a "make it up as you go" source, as it the only place their imagined "Federer is GOAT" fantasy Dan stand for more than an hour.

get me one source that says Laver is GOAT. Also if its so easy to edit, why don't you go ahead and edit it then! See the problem is when a rumor starts, its gets so big that it gets ridiculous. Have you ever actually TRIED editing a wiki article?? I have...and I'll tell you...your editing is merely a request/suggestion which the organization will then verify with others in the field and make the necessary change if they have to.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 14, 2013

RF20Lennon said:
get me one source that says Laver is GOAT. Also if its so easy to edit, why don't you go ahead and edit it then! See the problem is when a rumor starts, its gets so big that it gets ridiculous. Have you ever actually TRIED editing a wiki article?? I have...and I'll tell you...your editing is merely a request/suggestion which the organization will then verify with others in the field and make the necessary change if they have to.

Wikipedia is under constant battles between unqualified fanboys, political ideologues, and the uneducated, all trying to force their twisted perception of a person, object or event, hence the infinite number of citations stating one thing or another has not been verified.

Pure chaos deviod of standards, and professional or academic merit.

illusions30 · Oct 14, 2013

Wikipedia is pretty much a joke. It is good to find statistics on but anything opinion related, forget it. Just look at Alexandra Stevenson's wikipedia page for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Stevenson

Never seen a bigger pile of horse turd and BS nonsense. I would already bet money it was written by either herself or her equally delusional mother (probably both). The fact that and many similar biographies and so called representations of a person is allowed, already says all you need to know about wikipedia.

illusions30 · Oct 14, 2013

The one fascinating thing about this thread title and Laver's quote is wasnt it a few years ago Laver referred to Federer as the best ever. Now he instead says "best of his generation". That indicates he has actually been demoted in Laver's view already. Wonder what he will say in 2 or 3 years, "one of the best of his generation" or "the best of guys born in the early 80s".

TheTruth · Oct 15, 2013

TMF said:
And what is your point?

Are you believe better h2h means better player than say it. If you don't why bother to even bring it up.

My point is that you keep bringing up Davydenko vs. Nadal, which is a perfectly respectable h2h. Davydenko's best surface is hard court and they haven't played in years, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to use that as a metric.

If two players are on the same level and have played many times, then, yes, I think the winner is the better player.

TheTruth · Oct 15, 2013

Sartorius said:
It doesn't matter? I completely disagree. As a fan following the sport, if you tell me to think about a h2h between two players, especially if you're arguing about who's the better tennis player, the first thing I'm going to think about is where they played those matches. So I'd say it matters. That said, of course people will differentiate the surfaces. Because there are different surfaces in tennis.

And no, not every win Nadal has over Federer was on a slow court. I also don't think that certain wins count and others don't. Every match counts.

What I believe is looking in the context of things. You for example, seem to be doing the exact opposite.

Still, I actually don't think the idea of "Nadal is better than Federer" is unlogical, unbelievable and such. You can certainly think so and make arguments for it. You can also make arguments for Fed. The h2h argument in my opinion is very refutable.

No, your reasons are your reasons. My reasons are my reasons. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm OK with whatever you choose to believe. It doesn't affect me, not only that, but I expect people to think differently than I do.

If you posted that you think Federer is the better player, I wouldn't question you, because imo, you would have valid reasons for believing so.

But, it's difficult to discuss anything with people who make statements such as the bolded.

It sounds like a putdown, is it? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and don't want to assume...)

Edit: I re-read your post. It seems you're questioning me why I think h2h makes a better player?

Is that what you're asking?

TheTruth · Oct 15, 2013

THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Wikipedia is under constant battles between unqualified fanboys, political ideologues, and the uneducated, all trying to force their twisted perception of a person, object or event, hence the infinite number of citations stating one thing or another has not been verified.

Pure chaos deviod of standards, and professional or academic merit.

We were told upfront that we were not to use anything on Wikipedia on our papers.

Bud · Oct 15, 2013

21-10 says he's not

TheTruth said:
We were told upfront that we were not to use anything on Wikipedia on our papers.

Wikipedia isn't a great source by itself. However, it can be a good starting point based on the references cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.

Death Master · Oct 15, 2013

The Truth speaks only the truth.

and the truth usually stings a few.

tennisaddict · Oct 15, 2013

TheTruth said:
My point is that you keep bringing up Davydenko vs. Nadal, which is a perfectly respectable h2h. Davydenko's best surface is hard court and they haven't played in years, so it doesn't seem to make any sense to use that as a metric.

If two players are on the same level and have played many times, then, yes, I think the winner is the better player.

What does the last para even mean ? What does same level mean ?

Davydenko leads Nadal by a distance on hard courts, so he is a better hard court player than Nadal who has now won USO 2 times beating a hard court champ like Novak ?

TheTruth · Oct 15, 2013

Bud said:
21-10 says he's not

Wikipedia isn't a great source by itself. However, it can be a good starting point based on the references cited at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.

What I don't understand is that it's a difference of opinion and I don't see anything wrong with that. We aren't meant to be clones, so it makes me wonder what's wrong with people who can't deal with differences. And, why some of these people actually appear to get angry.

Unreal.

I just avoid Wikipedia based on its format. We have to have peer reviewed articles and Wikipedia doesn't count. I would get points taken off.

TheTruth · Oct 15, 2013

Death Master said:
The Truth speaks only the truth.

and the truth usually stings a few.

So true...so true

.

TheTruth · Oct 15, 2013

tennisaddict said:
What does the last para even mean ? What does same level mean ?

Davydenko leads Nadal by a distance on hard courts, so he is a better hard court player than Nadal who has now won USO 2 times beating a hard court champ like Novak ?

You missed the previous post. There were a few that came before this.

Death Master · Oct 15, 2013

TheTruth said:
So true...so true .

you know something: I don't think laver---the rockhampton rocket really knows the deal.

he is a little behind times.

poor fellow just never stayed current.

if you are the greatest and I own your existence on damn near every surface then what does that make me. chopped liver?

laver does not like nadal for the same reason French don't like nadal.

he is a physical beast with muscles.

well he also has ridiculous talent on loan from the gods.

how else can you beat the greatest of all time?

anyway a couple of people replied to your post at Camelot elite tennis society.

lady emma and mr tee said something to you. you can check when you stop by next time around.

now back to roger: he was and is an unbelievable talent. he will be known as an all time great. his 17 slams have made him an immortal in our sport.

he is one of the greatest to ever play but so are a few others:

laver, nadal, and Sampras are also among the greatest to ever play.

when nadal completes his body of work which will take 4-5 more years and all the dust settles, here is what the all time rank will look like for those who must play this game:

1. laver
2. nadal
3. roger
4. sampras

ultradr · Oct 15, 2013

We'll have to wait a few years.

But under current tour surface conditions,
truely dominating players can win ~20+, Nadal or next one,
just like pre-Open era with 3 grass court slams (amateur + pro).

A lot of people might have been overly excited by Federer 2004-2007's
unusual achievements unseen between 1970s and 1990s.

TheTruth · Oct 15, 2013

Death Master said:
you know something: I don't think laver---the rockhampton rocket really knows the deal.

he is a little behind times.

poor fellow just never stayed current.

if you are the greatest and I own your existence on damn near every surface then what does that make me. chopped liver?

laver does not like nadal for the same reason French don't like nadal.

he is a physical beast with muscles.

well he also has ridiculous talent on loan from the gods.

how else can you beat the greatest of all time?

anyway a couple of people replied to your post at Camelot elite tennis society.

lady emma and mr tee said something to you. you can check when you stop by next time around.

now back to roger: he was and is an unbelievable talent. he will be known as an all time great. his 17 slams have made him an immortal in our sport.

he is one of the greatest to ever play but so are a few others:

laver, nadal, and Sampras are also among the greatest to ever play.

when nadal completes his body of work which will take 4-5 more years and all the dust settles, here is what the all time rank will look like for those who must play this game:

1. laver
2. nadal
3. roger
4. sampras

Well, this is my opinion. The whole thing is a clique.

JMac has Rod as his idol and when Federer started winning all of a sudden Roger was hanging out with Pete, remember that? and going to see Laver and all that jazz. Pretty much PR stuff. Then those players got behind Roger.

Nadal, OTOH, never played that game. He's in it for himself. He's not interested in Sampras, Rod, or anybody else, and I don't blame him.

He's let his racket do the talking and in the end we'll see which approach is more enduring.

Personally, I like Rafa's approach.

I'll have to go over out Lady Emma and Mr. Tee. Thanks for telling me.

Death Master · Oct 15, 2013

TheTruth said:
Well, this is my opinion. The whole thing is a clique.

JMac has Rod as his idol and when Federer started winning all of a sudden Roger was hanging out with Pete, remember that? and going to see Laver and all that jazz. Pretty much PR stuff. Then those players got behind Roger.

Nadal, OTOH, never played that game. He's in it for himself. He's not interested in Sampras, Rod, or anybody else, and I don't blame him.

He's let his racket do the talking and in the end we'll see which approach is more enduring.

Personally, I like Rafa's approach.

I'll have to go over out Lady Emma and Mr. Tee. Thanks for telling me.

agreed. you are spot on as usual.

best post of the day right there The Truth.

nadal really does take it day to day and match by match.

people at tennis forums have made him out to be this bloody monster. nothing could be further from the truth.

he was raised to humble and modest. he is just a normal dude who just happens to be enormously talented.

along with borg, nole, roger, and a few others, nadal is finest athlete to have ever picked up a racquet.

the ultimate tragedy is this: he has been injured off and on ever since he was 17. he would have already hit 17-18 slams if it was not for all those injuries.

bullfan · Oct 15, 2013

If you are putting Lavers opinion so high, then you should put Laver above Fed for Goat.

illusions30 · Oct 15, 2013

bullfan said:
If you are putting Lavers opinion so high, then you should put Laver above Fed for Goat.

Laver himself probably does that. There must be a reason he says Federer is for now the best of his era, and not the best of all time.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 16, 2013

TheTruth said:
We were told upfront that we were not to use anything on Wikipedia on our papers.

..and it is intellectually sound to avoid it, as it is a dumping ground of misinformation, emotionalism, and an avoidance of professional, academic truth & value....

...so it comes as no surprise that the usual suspects on this board refer to it often.

THUNDERVOLLEY · Oct 16, 2013

illusions30 said:
Laver himself probably does that. There must be a reason he says Federer is for now the best of his era, and not the best of all time.

There is a reason, and it is clear: at the end of all rational considerations, Laver cannot say Federer is the all-time greatest, or GOAT, if you prefer, and now isolates him to a single generation. That speaks volumes about his true place in history, which objective minds realized all along, while the worst of his fanbase lived in a strange, unrealistic world. Now that world is filled with the screams of their own inability to face the truth.

Sartorius · Oct 16, 2013

TheTruth said:
Edit: I re-read your post. It seems you're questioning me why I think h2h makes a better player? :

Is that what you're asking?

Yes. I wasn't trying to put you down but rather disagreeing with your line of thought. This includes how much significance is put to a h2h when thinking of the "better player".

The same line of thought which becomes more apparent with Death Master's following quote(I almost wrote Clay Death):

if you are the greatest and I own your existence on damn near every surface then what does that make me. chopped liver?

Trying to look past the impertinent nature of this quote if you don't mind my saying, there's something very wrong about it. Simply, Nadal does not "own Federer's existance on damn near every surface". This word play is not that uncommon btw, "player X OWNS player Y", but frankly it just stinks. You would think Federer lost every single match they played against each other. But far from that, you woul think Nadal is ahead of Federer on achievements on "damn near every surface".

Btw, those things you two were jerking about Laver, Pete and how they were near Fed for PR, how Nadal "didn't fall for it"... Hilarious. I'm getting more and more convinced that there's something very very wrong about the way you think things through.

Death Master · Oct 16, 2013

I put it that way for illustrative convenience.

I was trying to make a point. no need for that much over sensitivity.

Sartorius · Oct 16, 2013

Death Master said:
I put it that way for illustrative convenience.

I was trying to make a point. no need for that much over sensitivity.

I wasn't over sensitive at all. The words you choose in order to make your point reflect your line of thought. In my opinion it doesn't fall too far off the basis of the h2h argument, especially the style in which it is used around here. There's something stinking about it.

And knowing your style Clay Death, that is usually how you make a point anyway.

ultradr · Oct 16, 2013

Death Master said:
1. laver
2. nadal
3. roger
4. sampras

I bet the places for nadal and federer will be lower than that in 10-20 years.

Tennis community promotes current generation of players. After test of times,
top GOAT list usually consist of players who truely dominate a generation,
who reigned a decade or so, likes of Laver, Gonzalez. In open era, Sampras
will be there until a player come along and dominate more than 6-7 years.

Only near immortal status acquired in this generation, IMHO, is Nadal's
undisputed clay record. That will last indefinitely.

Rod Laver claims Roger Federer is the best player of his generation

G.O.A.T.

monfed

Guest

Banned

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Professional

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Legend

Similar threads