[B]Weak Eras[/B]

[grafselesfan]

Federer is the male GOAT.

Sure. That is why he has 2 Calender Slams. That is why he dominated Wimbledon and the U.S Open vs an incredible field that included 3 guys who would end up with 6 or more slam titles in their careers. That is why he dominated the polar opposites of grass and clay back when grass was real grass and while facing other all time great players.

 

[Polvorin]

Lambiel, I don't know anything about juiced radar guns or any other unverifiable claims you might make. My point, better stated, is that playing a tactical, intelligent game and winning against the massive baseline bashing and heavier topspin used in the modern game is extremely difficult. This is why players like Hingis, who even as a young teen was quite a match for Steffi, just got blown away in the bashing era. And this is why I am doubtful that past players would do well against the likes of Serena. The game has changed. Of course, you are welcome to a different opinion as we are both just speculating.

 

[Polvorin]

Sure. That is why he has 2 Calender Slams. That is why he dominated Wimbledon and the U.S Open vs an incredible field that included 3 guys who would end up with 6 or more slam titles in their careers. That is why he dominated the polar opposites of grass and clay back when grass was real grass and while facing other all time great players.

Haven't you figured out that you can't make arguments like this because every point you make could be used against Graf just as easily as Federer? Both of them dominated the competition, thus their competitors have little to show in the way of accomplishments, especially slams.

And grass not being real grass does not help Federer. Rather, it prevents him from total domination (by that I mean winning every year without dropping a set). His nemesis, Nadal, would never win a set off of him on real grass. Hell, he would never make it past the 4th round at Wimbledon on real grass.

 

[lessthanjake]

Sure. That is why he has 2 Calender Slams. That is why he dominated Wimbledon and the U.S Open vs an incredible field that included 3 guys who would end up with 6 or more slam titles in their careers. That is why he dominated the polar opposites of grass and clay back when grass was real grass and while facing other all time great players.

Laver has 2 calendar slams and just 3 slams outside of those...A calendar slam measures dominance in the slams. That's all it is. And any objective person would agree that Federer was more dominant in the slams overall than Laver was, given that Laver didn't at all dominate in the slams when he played them outside of the 2 great yers.

What are you talking about with Wimbledon and the US Open? Federer HAS dominated both...You can say that his peers didn't include 3 guys with 6 slams, but many of the people in today's field are not near their career end. Murray and Djokovic could easily end with 6 slams each, and then your argument would be a massively epic fail, though it already is a fail.

And dominating grass and clay? Well Federer has dominated grass and hard courts and dominated everyone but one player on clay. The player you alluded to (Borg) didn't dominate AT ALL on hard courts. So Federer comes out better when you actually include every surface. Furthermore, don't act like the slowing down of grass helps Federer. Nadal would never have beaten Federer at Wimbledon on faster grass. Federer is better the faster the surface is. Let's be honest; he would likely be working on 7 straight Wimbledons if the grass were as fast as before.

 

[grafselesfan]

Laver has 2 calendar slams and just 3 slams outside of those...A calendar slam measures dominance in the slams. That's all it is.

You are right a calender slam measures dominance in the slams and Laver has 2 of them which no man or women does, and Federer doesnt even have one to date. Your point?

And any objective person would agree that Federer was more dominant in the slams overall than Laver was, given that Laver didn't at all dominate in the slams when he played them outside of the 2 great yers.

Little wonder when most of Laver's best years were taken away from him by pros being banned from slam play. That would be like Federer being banned from slam play from 2003-2009 and then taking whats left. Would Federer still manage a calender slam before that, another one after that, and some other top years and slams in addition to all that, LOL! Good luck.

To throw you a bone though if Federer completes a calender slam at age 31 (2012), the same age Laver achieved it, then goes on to win some of the slams he plays in the preceding years after 2012 I will concede he outdid Laver. How is that.

What are you talking about with Wimbledon and the US Open? Federer HAS dominated both...

and Sampras also did vs a much tougher grass court and fast hard court field. He also put on performances (especialy on grass) at a higher level than Federer ever has to date. He also won U.S Open titles 12 years apart, something Federer has a ways in time to get close to.

Murray and Djokovic could easily end with 6 slams each

Yeah right.

And dominating grass and clay? Well Federer has dominated grass and hard courts and dominated everyone but one player on clay. The player you alluded to (Borg) didn't dominate AT ALL on hard courts. So Federer comes out better when you actually include every surface. Furthermore, don't act like the slowing down of grass helps Federer. Nadal would never have beaten Federer at Wimbledon on faster grass. Federer is better the faster the surface is. Let's be honest; he would likely be working on 7 straight Wimbledons if the grass were as fast as before.

as if one should have to explain the greater disparity between even normal grass and a fast hard court and clay and and normal grass. Borg dominated the polar opposites of tennis. Federer most certainly does not do this. If we want to talk about competition overall Federer's competition on any surface is a joke compared to what Borg faced. As for the old grass vs the new grass Federer potentially could have even more trouble with someone like Roddick on the old grass which would just make him serve even more deadly. As we see he already has quite a bit of trouble with Roddick often on grass. The fact is the current grass plays more like a hard court than anything so it is essentialy Federer dominating 2 hard court slams these days, and even if it were true grass and fast hard courts it isnt as impressive as complete dominance on true grass and clay.

 

[lessthanjake]

You are right a calender slam measures dominance in the slams and Laver has 2 of them which no man or women does, and Federer doesnt even have one to date. Your point?

Laver also only had 3 slams outside of his 2 calendar slam years, while Federer has 5 multi-slam years, including 3 years with 3 slams (and maybe a fourth this year). Anybody with a brain can see that even without a calendar slam, Federer has dominated the slams more than Laver did.

Little wonder when most of Laver's best years were taken away from him by pros being banned from slam play. That would be like Federer being banned from slam play from 2003-2009 and then taking whats left. Would Federer still manage a calender slam before that, another one after that, and some other top years and slams in addition to all that, LOL! Good luck.

Laver was #1 in the world from 1968-1971. That is 4 years. Despite the calendar slam in 1969, Laver only produced 5 slams during those 4 years. He crashed out terribly in every other slam attempt at #1.

So it is very different from taking 2003-2009 away from Federer. That would take away Federer's entire period at #1 (and two years at #2). Laver's period at #1 was not entirely cut off. He just didn't deliver outside of one year.

In any case, that's not even mentioning the fact that the amateur slams that Laver won are a joke that cannot be taken seriously. He would have been lucky to win ONE slam during those years had it been Open Era at that time.

and Sampras also did vs a much tougher grass court and fast hard court field. He also put on performances (especialy on grass) at a higher level than Federer ever has to date. He also won U.S Open titles 12 years apart, something Federer has a ways in time to get close to.

Sampras didn't dominate hard courts nearly as much as Federer. Federer has 8 hard court slams and counting in 6 years. Sampras had 7 hard court slams over 13 years. Try again.

And the "much tougher grass court and fast hard court field" claim is something that I have debunked before. Sampras did not play even ONE truly great player in his prime who had a game suited to grass. Not one. And if you think that his hard court era was better, you're an idiot, because virtually every player nowadays is best on hard courts. Any logical person would tell you that that makes hard courts ridiculously tough to win on now. For Sampras, half the best players in the world couldnt play well on hard courts (or grass for that matter). This is a big difference and it makes Federer look far better.

as if one should have to explain the greater disparity between even normal grass and a fast hard court and clay and and normal grass. Borg dominated the polar opposites of tennis. Federer most certainly does not do this.

Borg did not truly dominate polar opposites of tennis because fast grass is not the polar opposite of clay in every way. They have two big things in common. They get terrible bounces, especially when reacting to huge topspin, and topspin affects the height of the bounce a lot. Borg played with heavy topspin so these similarities were a huge help to him on both surfaces. On hard courts, where topspin doesnt affect the bounce as much, and doesnt create bad bounces, Borg was significantly less good. So your attempt to make Borg seem like the ultimate player at adapting is misguided. He could adapt to the speed of a court, but he could not fully adapt to courts with true bounces.

Besides, let me reiterate. Federer would likely be dominating fast grass MORE than today's grass. And he dominates everyone but Nadal on clay, while also being the greatest hard court player ever. That puts him ahead of Borg overall.

Lastly, why is dominating grass and clay superior to dominating hard and grass? Last time I checked, hard courts are played on more than clay courts, so if anything, Federer's domination is better to have, even if you think it is less impressive for erroneous reasons.

If we want to talk about competition overall Federer's competition on any surface is a joke compared to what Borg faced. As for the old grass vs the new grass Federer potentially could have even more trouble with someone like Roddick on the old grass which would just make him serve even more deadly. As we see he already has quite a bit of trouble with Roddick often on grass. The fact is the current grass plays more like a hard court than anything so it is essentialy Federer dominating 2 hard court slams these days, and even if it were true grass and fast hard courts it isnt as impressive as complete dominance on true grass and clay.

Borg's competition was not better. Prove that it was better with historical evidence rather than an argument that is a gigantic fallacy where you basically say that Federer can't be GOAT because he dominated too much.

Don't be silly. Federer would not have big trouble with Roddick on old grass. Notice that in all their meetings on grass, Federer has outaced Roddick. Then tell me who would benefit more from the surface being EVEN faster. Probably the guy with more aces already on the slower surface. And Federer has only had big trouble with Roddick on grass in one match. Try again.