30-year-old Federer vs prime Federer...would it be close or a demolition?

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Mythical matchup but if you observe the posts on here, Djokovic gets a lot of grief because he's having tough matches against a 30-year-old Federer. Hence people are finding it hard to consider Djokovic a great player since the consensus is that if he can barely beat a 30 year old Federer, what would a 24-25 year old Federer do to him?

But then there's one other thing which people don't mention. Even despite Federer having slipped a bit in speed, his experience and tennis acumen is all there. And the age of 30 isn't necessarily a death sentence as most tend to believe. As we can see, even David Ferrer at age 30 still has a serious set of wheels.

How do we really know that today's 30 year old Federer would not cause a lot of trouble to the young Federer of 05-06? :?
 

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
Federer claims that Federer now would beat Federer of old.

Sampras said the same thing. I think it might be an ego issue.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
Federer claims that Federer now would beat Federer of old.

Sampras said the same thing. I think it might be an ego issue.
I think it's concentration lapses which Federer suffers more than anything but he can still raise his game and get into the zone at times.
 

ManFed

Rookie
Prime Fed in straight sets at Wimbledon
Prime Fed in 4 sets at US Open.
Prime Fed in 5 sets at Clay.
 

mattennis

Hall of Fame
Human nature. We tell that to ourselves all the time: "I am still that good, even better than ever".

I tell this to myself every day in the morning "you still have it" (I am a mathematician), but the reality is that I am not who I was, my mind just can not work with the same intensity, I am not as bright as I was when I was 20-35 years old.

We need to fool ourselves, to get the excitement again, but deep inside we know we are just a shadow of what we were at our prime.
 

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
His improvements in certain aspects of the game have been overwhelmed by the decrease in power and movement.

End thread.
 

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
Mythical matchup but if you observe the posts on here, Djokovic gets a lot of grief because he's having tough matches against a 30-year-old Federer. Hence people are finding it hard to consider Djokovic a great player since the consensus is that if he can barely beat a 30 year old Federer, what would a 24-25 year old Federer do to him?

But then there's one other thing which people don't mention. Even despite Federer having slipped a bit in speed, his experience and tennis acumen is all there. And the age of 30 isn't necessarily a death sentence as most tend to believe. As we can see, even David Ferrer at age 30 still has a serious set of wheels.

How do we really know that today's 30 year old Federer would not cause a lot of trouble to the young Federer of 05-06? :?
Who thinks this? Djokovic is a great player regardless. Is he one of the "greats?"? That has yet to be seen.

Losing to any version of Federer after 2003 is not an embarrassment of any means. There is nothing wrong with losing to a player most experts consider to be the greatest player of all time.

I do think Federer of his prime would beat the current Federer. Roger's footwork was unmatched in 2004-2007 and he was one of the most explosive players on tour. He kept excellent depth on his shots and would never shank as much as current Federer. Although, the Roger of today has changed his game a bit, opting to end points more quickly. I think prime Federer would have neutralied this. Prime Federer in 4 sets anywhere but clay. It might go 5 there.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
In my opinion, on one hand you have your skills filled in a bag, on the other you have the ability to put those skills out of the bag and into good use.

I think with Federer, the former got better (at least he seems to think that way), the latter got worse. But I don't think it's 'strange', so to speak, given where he stands today.

I think Federer's biggest strength in his heyday was his consistency, rather than his skill set. It's one thing to be able to play great (how many times we see it from younger, lower ranked players, where you think 'why is this guy ranked so low?'), it's another thing to play great all the time.
 
Last edited:

oberyn

Professional
In my opinion, on one hand you have your skills filled in a bag, on the other you have the ability to put those skills out of the bag and into good use.
I think I read a quote like this from Billie Jean King. She was musing that it was unfortunate that by the time she felt like she really understood the game, she no longer had the physical skills to take full advantage of this understanding.

I guess every athlete faces this.

I think 30-year-old Federer would give prime Federer all he could handle.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Grass: Prime Federer in 3 sets (6-1,6-3,6-0)
Hard Courts(Outdoor): Prime Federer in 3 sets (6-4,7-5,7-6(3))
Hard Courts(Indoor): ******* in 2 sets: 6-4,7-5
Clay Courts: ******* in 4 sets: 6-4,3-6,7-5,6-2

Basically ******* can only keep up and play smartly against Prime Fed on Indoor and Clay courts.

Prime Federer is far more explosive, and the Forehand had more sting. His movement is far better and unpredictability of shots are up. Plus low percentage shots can be made far more than *******.

******* lost movement, but uses better tactics to offset physical decrease. He plays much more to his strengths then when in his prime.In his prime....he didn't need to play to his strengths all the time....he can make any shot of his arse.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I agree ******* would have a real shot against Prime Federer on clay and indoors (not sure he would be favored though). Prime Federer would slaughter ******* on grass, and beat him convincingly on outdoor hard courts most of the time.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
I agree ******* would have a real shot against Prime Federer on clay and indoors (not sure he would be favored though). Prime Federer would slaughter ******* on grass, and beat him convincingly on outdoor hard courts most of the time.
I don't agree at all. I saw prime Federer struggling against guys who are far inferior to *******.:)
 

pvaudio

Legend
You guys seem to be ignoring the aspect that's more important than anything: experience. Federer's skill set has gone up since his prime, but it's his ability to utilize it that's diminshed. His backhand has improved, his serve has improved and while he used to move more quickly, he moves far more efficiently now. Navratilova commented ont his during the AO actually. She was saying that years ago, Federer could simply out play his opponents because he was so far ahead of the field as far as his abilities. The reason he's still always a top contender is because he's learned to play far more intelligently. So, for raw skill and tennis prowess, prime easily. As far as by surface, new Fed wins on clay and indoor hard for sure.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
I don't agree at all. I saw prime Federer struggling against guys who are far inferior to *******.:)
Federer would crush guys like Berdych and Tsonga on grass, guys ******* lost to. Not to mention some of the guys he nearly lost to a Wimbledon 2010, Falla, and then some other unknown in the 2nd round dictating totally from the baseline and hitting more winners. There are hardly any guys Federer struggled with on grass, other than maybe Halle if he was tired from the French.

Hard courts, again prime Federer was almost unbeatable, look at the collection of guys he loses to since 2008 on hard courts.
 
I think it's concentration lapses which Federer suffers more than anything but he can still raise his game and get into the zone at times.
Well then haven't you answered the question for yourself? Prime Federer would have fewer concentration lapses and therefore would defeat old Federer. Case closed, no?
 

Benhur

Hall of Fame
2006 Federer vs 2011 Federer. They play over the course of 12 months, one match a month, alternating surfaces for a total of 4 matches on hard, 4 on grass and 4 on clay.

I imagine 2006 Federer should win at least twice as often as his 2011 version, so the result would be 8-4 or better for prime Federer, and a few of the wins by prime Federer will be quite one-sided. Also, I think at least 2 of the wins by older Federer would be on clay.
 

Netzroller

Semi-Pro
I see it like most of you guys. On clay it might be an even match, on the other surfaces my vote goes to prime Federer. But I doubt it would be a real demolition on any surfaces.
I don't think current Fed is as bad as many of you think. He can come close to his best but not sustain the level like he used to.

Grass: Prime Federer in 3 sets (6-1,6-3,6-0)
Hard Courts(Outdoor): Prime Federer in 3 sets (6-4,7-5,7-6(3))
Hard Courts(Indoor): ******* in 2 sets: 6-4,7-5
Clay Courts: ******* in 4 sets: 6-4,3-6,7-5,6-2
Wow, even with the exact tiebreak score. You must really have a crystall ball:)
 
Well, wouldn't Old Federer know himself well enough to beat himself. Like 30 year old Fed would know exactly what made young fed tick while the younger one did not.
 

Tabash

Rookie
Lol this whole notion of "Prime Federer" being way overrated yet again. The "elite" competition was rubbish back then in comparison to today's standards. Roddick was as good as it got apart from a few flash in the pan appearances from Safin. He won Aussie Opens against the likes of Baghdatis and Gonzales, players who the top 4, would now expect to take out comfortably in a 4th round encounter(maybe drop a set or something, if we take pre-injury, dangerous Gonzo, but anyone of the top 4 would be laughing all the way to the bank if they had either of those two in a final) Roddick was a great matchup, like Fed is for Nadal and Federer is just as capable of slicing him to pieces today as he was 6 years ago. In the QF of AO, he put on a clinic against Del Potro and six years ago, he'd have played two more identical matches against similar players and it would have been, all bow at the alter of JesusFed... His achilles heal is the top 4, bottom line. If they hadn't come along, he'd be in the mid twenties with Slams by now, if Nadal hadn't come( but that's going quite a way back) he'd be in the thirties. And if other members of the top 4 weren't winning Slams today, who'd be winning them? The answer for the majority of them is Federer. So clearly the competition must have gotten better. One thing's for certain if they were around years ago, there's no way Fed would be at 16 majors. He may still have had the most but it would have been a lot more evenly distributed.
 

DeShaun

Banned
Young Federer would be slapping forehands from the baseline, old Federer would be stretched defensively; young Federer would be lapping up short balls and cutting down volleys--it would be a bloodbath IMO. Young Fed's legs were lively and explosive, like Djoker's are now.
 

LeeD

Bionic Poster
Methinks.
Now Fed beats 20 year old Fed every important big match, but loses lots of non important matches.
27 year old Fed beats them both.
 

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
Lol this whole notion of "Prime Federer" being way overrated yet again. The "elite" competition was rubbish back then in comparison to today's standards. Roddick was as good as it got apart from a few flash in the pan appearances from Safin. He won Aussie Opens against the likes of Baghdatis and Gonzales, players who the top 4, would now expect to take out comfortably in a 4th round encounter(maybe drop a set or something, if we take pre-injury, dangerous Gonzo, but anyone of the top 4 would be laughing all the way to the bank if they had either of those two in a final) Roddick was a great matchup, like Fed is for Nadal and Federer is just as capable of slicing him to pieces today as he was 6 years ago. In the QF of AO, he put on a clinic against Del Potro and six years ago, he'd have played two more identical matches against similar players and it would have been, all bow at the alter of JesusFed... His achilles heal is the top 4, bottom line. If they hadn't come along, he'd be in the mid twenties with Slams by now, if Nadal hadn't come( but that's going quite a way back) he'd be in the thirties. And if other members of the top 4 weren't winning Slams today, who'd be winning them? The answer for the majority of them is Federer. So clearly the competition must have gotten better. One thing's for certain if they were around years ago, there's no way Fed would be at 16 majors. He may still have had the most but it would have been a lot more evenly distributed.
Every member of the top 4 has won at least one slam? Are you sure?

You have to remember that Federer is 30 and he is still capable of beating Djokoivc, Nadal, and Murray. If Federer at 30 can beat players 5-6 years younger than him, what does that say about Roger in his prime? Don't underestimate him. And if you think that he was going around beating weak players, watch some of them while they were in their prime and say they were weak.

Nadal, too, played during the same period. He didn't win that many slams during that period. Why? Because Federer was too good for everybody, except Nadal on clay. Nadal was no match for any of those "weak" players off clay.
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Nadal, too, played during the same period. He didn't win that many slams during that period. Why? Because Federer was too good for everybody, except Nadal on clay. Nadal was no match for any of those "weak" players off clay.
Federer never had much to do with holding Nadal back. Nadal has only really lost 1 slam due to Federer (considering there are several players in Federer's half who would have beaten green grass court rookie Nadal at Wimbledon 2006). Nadal didnt win many non clay slams in the early years since he wasnt good enough on the other surfaces to do so yet, and was losing to a variety of random players in quarters or earlier. Once Nadal became champion quality on those surfaces he immediately began winning them. Federer was always the least of his problems, his own development rate and how he fared vs the field was what always determined him winning, totally unlike the way Nadal has always been having an impact on Federer's career from day 1, and totally unlike the way Djokovic has a HUGE impact on Nadal's career today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kragster

Hall of Fame
Every member of the top 4 has won at least one slam? Are you sure?

You have to remember that Federer is 30 and he is still capable of beating Djokoivc, Nadal, and Murray. If Federer at 30 can beat players 5-6 years younger than him, what does that say about Roger in his prime? Don't underestimate him. And if you think that he was going around beating weak players, watch some of them while they were in their prime and say they were weak.

Nadal, too, played during the same period. He didn't win that many slams during that period. Why? Because Federer was too good for everybody, except Nadal on clay. Nadal was no match for any of those "weak" players off clay.
I have no doubt that prime Fed was a beast and clearly people underestimate folks like Roddick and hewitt who were pretty good in their prime. That being said, now that joker has 5 slams and nadal has 10 , we can objectively say those 2 are in a different league from Roddick Hewitt. I'm sure Murray will win a slam someday as well. So what we can objectively say is as follows:

1) prime fed was much better than his competition
2) nadal and djokovic are much better than old Feds competition
3) old fed is still able to hang with prime Rafa and joker

WHAT WE CANT objectively say is how prime fed would do against old fed. It is pretty likely that prime fed would win most of the time. But my guess is he wouldn't be routing old fed.

I think like another poster said , old FEd would still bring the heat in like big matches. But in smaller games, I don't think old Fed has as much motivation so prime Fed would be taking the majority of those.
 

marcub

Banned
You guys seem to be ignoring the aspect that's more important than anything: experience. Federer's skill set has gone up since his prime, but it's his ability to utilize it that's diminshed. His backhand has improved, his serve has improved and while he used to move more quickly, he moves far more efficiently now. Navratilova commented ont his during the AO actually. She was saying that years ago, Federer could simply out play his opponents because he was so far ahead of the field as far as his abilities. The reason he's still always a top contender is because he's learned to play far more intelligently. So, for raw skill and tennis prowess, prime easily. As far as by surface, new Fed wins on clay and indoor hard for sure.
For all his experience, Roger hasn't actually changed/improved his game all that much over the years. Unlike Ralph, who always evolved.

Of all things, wherever did you see his serve improve lately?!

Someone said it above in the words of Billie Jean King - or perhaps Rod Stewart? I wish - that - I knew - what - I know now - when I was younger/ stronger.

He may know more, but the execution is not as fine anymore. He's lost half a step.
 

Smasher08

Legend
******* lost movement, but uses better tactics to offset physical decrease. He plays much more to his strengths then when in his prime.In his prime....he didn't need to play to his strengths all the time....he can make any shot of his arse.
Youngerer had an inferior backhand, poor strategy, and was mentally weakerer.

Edge to Youngerer on pre-2002 grass only. IMO taking out Djoker at the French last year was a bigger accomplishment than beating Sampras a decade ago.
 

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
Federer never had much to do with holding Nadal back. Nadal has only really lost 1 slam due to Federer (considering there are several players in Federer's half who would have beaten green grass court rookie Nadal at Wimbledon 2006). Nadal didnt win many non clay slams in the early years since he wasnt good enough on the other surfaces to do so yet, and was losing to a variety of random players in quarters or earlier. Once Nadal became champion quality on those surfaces he immediately began winning them. Federer was always the least of his problems, his own development rate and how he fared vs the field was what always determined him winning, totally unlike the way Nadal has always been having an impact on Federer's career from day 1, and totally unlike the way Djokovic has a HUGE impact on Nadal's career today.
I agree with what you're saying.

Federer didn't hold back Nadal, but he did hold back the players that were beating Nadal. Federer was able to hold back the majority of the field during his prime, save for Nadal on clay. It was only after a slight decline (I don't believe he declined that much in 2008, but the mono was more an "amplifier" that made it seem like he did) that the field started to beat him more regularly. But he was still a force. Now, it's Nadal's turn. But he wasn't able to hold Djokovic back. Djokovic also holds a good match-up advantage against Nadal. So we can't call the field strong simply because Djokovic can now match Nadal or the field weak because Federer beat nearly everyone in his prime.
 

MDCCLXXVI

Rookie
First set would be tight, could go either way. Fed 2012 can still smack winners, he's pretty wiley.

2nd, 3rd and possibly 4th set would all be demolition though.
 

FlashFlare11

Hall of Fame
I have no doubt that prime Fed was a beast and clearly people underestimate folks like Roddick and hewitt who were pretty good in their prime. That being said, now that joker has 5 slams and nadal has 10 , we can objectively say those 2 are in a different league from Roddick Hewitt. I'm sure Murray will win a slam someday as well. So what we can objectively say is as follows:

1) prime fed was much better than his competition
2) nadal and djokovic are much better than old Feds competition
3) old fed is still able to hang with prime Rafa and joker

WHAT WE CANT objectively say is how prime fed would do against old fed. It is pretty likely that prime fed would win most of the time. But my guess is he wouldn't be routing old fed.

I think like another poster said , old FEd would still bring the heat in like big matches. But in smaller games, I don't think old Fed has as much motivation so prime Fed would be taking the majority of those.
I can see what you're saying. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I'm trying to find the best way to articulate this, still. But I'll take a shot at it.

Hypothetically speaking, if Nadal never stops Djokovic from winning another slam, will Nadal not be considered in the same league as Djokovic? Nadal is a 10-time slam champion, but it would look like he won his titles in an era where he had no competition, since Federer is such a favorable match-up for him. This, I feel, is the same thing we're subjecting Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, etc. They are all slam/multi-slam winners. But, simply because they couldn't stop Federer, they are look upon as second-rate players. That's not how we should be looking at them, either.
 

MDCCLXXVI

Rookie
For all his experience, Roger hasn't actually changed/improved his game all that much over the years. Unlike Ralph, who always evolved.

Of all things, wherever did you see his serve improve lately?!

Someone said it above in the words of Billie Jean King - or perhaps Rod Stewart? I wish - that - I knew - what - I know now - when I was younger/ stronger.

He may know more, but the execution is not as fine anymore. He's lost half a step.
There was never much to improve in Feds game. Little things here and there but usually relating to consistency, no glaring "thats a weakness" thing.

Even his high backhand isn't a weakness in and of itself. Nadal made it a weakness. He created a weakness with his ball.
 
I have no doubt that prime Fed was a beast and clearly people underestimate folks like Roddick and hewitt who were pretty good in their prime. That being said, now that joker has 5 slams and nadal has 10 , we can objectively say those 2 are in a different league from Roddick Hewitt. I'm sure Murray will win a slam someday as well. So what we can objectively say is as follows:

1) prime fed was much better than his competition
2) nadal and djokovic are much better than old Feds competition
3) old fed is still able to hang with prime Rafa and joker

WHAT WE CANT objectively say is how prime fed would do against old fed. It is pretty likely that prime fed would win most of the time. But my guess is he wouldn't be routing old fed.

I think like another poster said , old FEd would still bring the heat in like big matches. But in smaller games, I don't think old Fed has as much motivation so prime Fed would be taking the majority of those.
Interesting. So for the most part you would say prime Fed would beat prime Nadal and prime Djoker (except for prime Nadal on clay) since even old man Fed can hang with prime Djoker and less so prime Nadal. And by your own words prime Fed would most likely win against old Fed most of the time.
 

westside

Hall of Fame
Sorry to be playing this old card, but depends on surface speeds.

If it were played on the quicker surfaces from 03-06(ish), Prime Fed should beat current Fed in straights.

Surfaces from 2011/12, Prime Fed would still win, but it would be A LOT closer. Prime Fed's all court game wouldn't be as efficient on these slow surfaces (which we're currently seeing with current Fed). Aggressive tennis means very little these days.
 

marcub

Banned
There was never much to improve in Feds game. Little things here and there but usually relating to consistency, no glaring "thats a weakness" thing.

Even his high backhand isn't a weakness in and of itself. Nadal made it a weakness. He created a weakness with his ball.
Technically he's as close to flawless as you'll get. Tactically, however, he's very stubborn and simply refuses to adjust when things aren't working. Take the semi against Ralph at this past AO: it took him years to finally concede to play the bh down the line to Ralph's backhand - he used it great for a set and then he reverted to old habits. Couldn't help but going almost exclusively cross court from the second set onward.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
if they played 10 times, prime Federer would probably win 7 or 8. out of those about 3 would be demolition jobs, maybe 3 would be quite close (4 sets in a 5 set match) 1 or 2 would be really close. 30 year old Federer would sneak a couple of wins.
 
Unless Current Federer is able to hit a heavy topspin shot that kicks up high to prime-Federer's backhand, I don't see how he's going to win.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
Interesting. So for the most part you would say prime Fed would beat prime Nadal and prime Djoker (except for prime Nadal on clay) since even old man Fed can hang with prime Djoker and less so prime Nadal. And by your own words prime Fed would most likely win against old Fed most of the time.
We already know how prime fed did against Rafa( and by your own definition Pre prime Rafa since Rafa is in his prime now) - better on grass and fast hc, worse on clay and slow HC. And here's where I disagree with the whole extrapolation theory - you can't really say since prime fed better than old fed, hence prime fed better than prime joker. Pre prime joker beat prime fed at Montreal and gave him a very tough fight at USO 07 ( I believe he was ahead in the first 2 sets). So does that mean joker 2.0 would be easily beating prime fed?

Old Hewitt took a set of djoker. Does that mean young Hewitt beats joker?

It is somewhat logical to assume that with age you lose a step. But with age you also gain experience . Perhaps old fed is better tactically than young fed and that's why he hangs with prime joker?
 
Last edited:
We already know how prime fed did against Rafa( and by your own definition Pre prime Rafa since Rafa is in his prime now) - better on grass and fast hc, worse on clay and slow HC. And here's where I disagree with the whole extrapolation theory - you can't really say since prime fed better than old fed, hence prime fed better than prime joker. Pre prime joker beat prime fed at Montreal and gave him a very tough fight at USO 07 ( I believe he was ahead in the first 2 sets). So does that mean joker 2.0 would be easily beating prime fed?

Old Hewitt took a set of djoker. Does that mean young Hewitt beats joker?

It is somewhat logical to assume that with age you lose a step. But with age you also gain experience . Perhaps old fed is better tactically than young fed and that's why he hangs with prime joker?
That's idiotic. Just because someone is prime doesn't mean they can't lose to anyone ever. So what if pre-prime Djoker beat prime Fed. Dodig beat prime Rafa, what's your point? Tell me how many time preprime Djoker beat prime Fed at a slam? And then answer how many time post-prime Fed beat prime Djoker at slams? There's the rub oh naive one.

As for prime Rafa, well if Rafa is only prime now then Fed and Rafa never really met on HC slams when Fed was in his prime. They only met on grass which was 2007. Clay we know Nadal was prime from 2005-2008 right? According to you ****s that is. So that means prime Fed was 1-6 vs prime Rafa on clay. And prime Fed was 5-2 against pre-prime Rafa off clay.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Prime Fed in straight sets at Wimbledon
Prime Fed in 4 sets at US Open.
Prime Fed in 5 sets at Clay.
I actually think this is where prime Fed is inferior; Federer is incredible on clay, even now, and his backhand is much less weak on the surface than in the past; it would be a close match, that for me would go either way.
 

SoBad

G.O.A.T.
I actually think this is where prime Fed is inferior; Federer is incredible on clay, even now, and his backhand is much less weak on the surface than in the past; it would be a close match, that for me would go either way.
By "prime" he means Ferede now, not the hack who piled up meaningless slams against no competition in 2004- 2007.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Prime Fed in straight sets at Wimbledon
Prime Fed in 4 sets at US Open.
Prime Fed in 5 sets at Clay.
That's interesting. He does seem to play with more maturity on the clay now, but I can't see Federer beating his old self in any venue but if I had to pick one where he'd push his old self, it is at the French.
 

kragster

Hall of Fame
That's idiotic. Just because someone is prime doesn't mean they can't lose to anyone ever. So what if pre-prime Djoker beat prime Fed. Dodig beat prime Rafa, what's your point? Tell me how many time preprime Djoker beat prime Fed at a slam? And then answer how many time post-prime Fed beat prime Djoker at slams? There's the rub oh naive one.

As for prime Rafa, well if Rafa is only prime now then Fed and Rafa never really met on HC slams when Fed was in his prime. They only met on grass which was 2007. Clay we know Nadal was prime from 2005-2008 right? According to you ****s that is. So that means prime Fed was 1-6 vs prime Rafa on clay. And prime Fed was 5-2 against pre-prime Rafa off clay.
Your sense of logic is awful. My point WAS NOT TO CLAIM prime joker is better than prime fed. MY point was to claim that no one has real evidence to say that prime fed would be wiping the floors with joker 2.0 because prime joker and prime fed have never played each other. Pre prime joker has only 1 meeting with prime fed in slams so don't be stupid and make judgments from a sample size of one.

PS - isn't it high time you came out of the closet? Why not change your name to Rafaforthelose? I mean that is truly what you stand for right ?
 
Top