Battle of the GOATS : Federer vs Navratilova Who is greater?

[rogerfederer26]

Roger Federer is the greatest male tennis player of all time while Martina Navratilova is the widely recognized greatest female tennis player of all time.

Who is greater between the two?

 

[Claudius]

Roger Federer is the greatest male tennis player of all time while Martina Navratilova is the widely recognized greatest female tennis player of all time.

Who is greater between the two?

Navratilova imo

 

[Tennis_Maestro]

Navaratilova carried too much testosterone to be looked @ as a female therefore i see her success in the Women's game as clearly unfair.

 

[joeri888]

Fed's obviously a better player. But Martina couldn't choose her sex, had she had a choice, I'm sure she'd be male

 

[jetlee2k]

Navaratilova carried too much testosterone to be looked @ as a female therefore i see her success in the Women's game as clearly unfair.

I was going to say the same thing. She must take something in the old days that changed her from a female to a male.. Look at her body before she was a player and slowly change to a MALE tennis player.. I don't think she's considered FEMALE at all.. !!

 

[iamgoat]

How can we compare?

 

[kOaMaster]

I prefer males tennis, so I would vote for the male player in almost every comparison

but navratilova could be what federer is trying to go to.
I'm very impressed of her achievements in her "higher" age. a very very intelligent player.

 

[rogerfederer26]

How can we compare?

In terms of records and achievements?

 

[GameSampras]

Martina.. She had to deal with some all time greats.

federer? Other than Nadal? Name a great.

 

[lambielspins]

Neither is the GOAT of their gender.

Laver is the mens GOAT
Graf is the womens GOAT

I would not vote for either since neither is even the rightful owner of the title.

 

[rogerfederer26]

Neither is the GOAT of their gender.

Graf is the womens GOAT

I would not vote for either since neither is even the rightful owner of the title.

Graf's career does have an asterisk. Condi, is that you?

"Of even more significance, there's this little gap in Graf's resume the size of the hole in the ozone layer: It's called Monica Seles. Was Graf the best female player of all time? She wasn't even the best in the heart of her career."- Sports Illustrated 8/27/2001-

 

[flying24]

It is pretty stupid to just assume everyone considers these 2 as the GOATS.

Many people would still argue Laver, Budge, Gonzalez, Rosewall, or even Sampras and Borg over Federer.

Among the women you could argue for any of Graf, Evert, Wills Moody, or Court as the greatest ever as well.

These 2 are far from the undisputed GOATs, they are great but they are not the Tiger Woods of tennis, so creating a poll and calling them the GOATs as if it were fact is pointless.

 

[drakulie]

Martina.. She had to deal with some all time greats.

federer? Other than Nadal? Name a great.

Sampras beat 2 players, which would be considered true "greats of the game" in slam finals. (Agassi/Becker)

Federer has also beaten 2 players, which would be considered true "greats of the game" in slam finals.(Agassi/nadal).

keep trying.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Stupid comparing men's vs women's tennis.

 

[gsharma]

Sampras beat 2 players, which would be considered true "greats of the game" in slam finals. (Agassi/Becker)

Federer has also beaten 2 players, which would be considered true "greats of the game" in slam finals.(Agassi/nadal).

keep trying.

The Agassi that Sampras beat was not the same man that Federer beat. Agassi was way past his prime then and struggling with injuries.

 

[VivalaVida]

this thread makes no sense. There can be no comparison made between the two.

 

[drakulie]

The Agassi that Sampras beat was not the same man that Federer beat. Agassi was way past his prime then and struggling with injuries.

yeah. whatever. tell that to the rest of the tour.

I suppose safin and hewitt (two guys fed beat in slam finals, and pete lost to in slam finals), were also past their prime. Right??

 

[lambielspins]

The Agassi that Sampras beat was not the same man that Federer beat. Agassi was way past his prime then and struggling with injuries.

Agassi had a very up and down career. The Agassi of many years of the 90s- 93, 96, 97, 98, maybe even 91, was a worse Agassi than the one that Federer played from 2003-2005.

 

[gsharma]

yeah. whatever. tell that to the rest of the tour.

I suppose safin and hewitt (two guys fed beat in slam finals, and pete lost to in slam finals), were also past their prime. Right??

Agassi in his twenties, even the breakout year of 1999, when he was 29, was not the same guy Federer beat in 2005 US Open final. Agassi was 35 in 2005.

 

[lambielspins]

Agassi in his twenties, even the breakout year of 1999, when he was 29, was not the same guy Federer beat in 2005 US Open final. Agassi was 35 in 2005.

You make it sound like Agassi usually played like he did in 1999, LOL! Sampras beat Agassi 6 times in slams. 1 of those was 1993 another of Agassi's many bad "slump" years where he ended #24 in the World and lost 1st round of the U.S Open, and was in fact playing much worse than 2005 regardless of age. Another was the 1990 U.S Open, a year Agassi played terrible choking tennis in his first 2 slam finals, the other one losing to 30 year pretender Andres Gomez in the final. The Agassi of the 2005 U.S Open final would have easily beaten the Agassi of the 1990 final the way he played both. The 2001 and 2002 U.S Open Agassi was in his 30s too, so if being in your 30s is your automatic qualifcation for him now being supposably weak, that would apply to those also. So that leaves just the 1995 U.S Open and 1999 Wimbledon finals when he was much stronger.

 

[drakulie]

Agassi in his twenties, even the breakout year of 1999, when he was 29, was not the same guy Federer beat in 2005 US Open final. Agassi was 35 in 2005.

and he was 32 when Sampras beat him in 2002. Your point is????

 

[gsharma]

You make it sound like Agassi usually played like he did in 1999, LOL! Sampras beat Agassi 6 times in slams. 1 of those was 1993 another of Agassi's many bad "slump" years where he ended #24 in the World and lost 1st round of the U.S Open, and was in fact playing much worse than 2005 regardless of age. Another was the 1990 U.S Open, a year Agassi played terrible choking tennis in his first 2 slam finals, the other one losing to 30 year pretender Andres Gomez in the final. The Agassi of the 2005 U.S Open final would have easily beaten the Agassi of the 1990 final the way he played both. The 2001 and 2002 U.S Open Agassi was in his 30s too, so if being in your 30s is your automatic qualifcation for him now being supposably weak, that would apply to those also. So that leaves just the 1995 U.S Open and 1999 Wimbledon finals when he was much stronger.

I know that Agassi had a very topsy-turvy career. I'm simply saying that in 2005, Agassi was not at his best. In fact, he was way past his prime and struggling with sciatic nerve issues. That's all I am saying.

 

[lambielspins]

I know that Agassi had a very topsy-turvy career. I'm simply saying that in 2005, Agassi was not at his best. In fact, he was way past his prime and struggling with sciatic nerve issues. That's all I am saying.

Fine, I agree with that. Just remember Agassi was rarely at his best. He was either old, or slumping, or injured, or something else, but he was obviously great even in the many years he wasnt at his rarely seen combined physical and emotional best as his greatness is founded on winning 8 slams and one on each surface even over a long stretched out career with very little true prime tennis. Even in 1999 his greatest ever year though he was he lost to Vince Spadea at the Australian Open, struggled even slightly more vs an even slightly weaker draw to win his French than Federer this year, and took 5 sets to beat 2-time slam finalist/ 0 time slam winner Martin at the U.S Open. Agassi was and is a great player but Federer could beat any version of Agassi, including 95 or 99, although those undoubtably would have given him the best challenge out of any year of Agassi.

 

[bruce38]

Seles is the female GOAT.

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

The Agassi that Sampras beat was not the same man that Federer beat. Agassi was way past his prime then and struggling with injuries.

Yet he was still good enough to make a Slam Final. Use your brain more instead of making stupid comments.

 

[grafrules]

Funny how when Graf was beating 30-32 Navratilova regularly in slam finals Martina was "old" even though she won all but 2 of her slams between ages 25 and 33. Yet Agassi was somehow not old and an amazing win at 34 and 35. Double standards galore.

 

[Chelsea_Kiwi]

Funny how when Graf was beating 30-32 Navratilova regularly in slam finals Martina was "old" even though she won all but 2 of her slams between ages 25 and 33. Yet Agassi was somehow not old and an amazing win at 34 and 35. Double standards galore.

Lol at this stupid comment. You are comparing the womens game to the mens game of course there is going to be two different standards.

 

[grafrules]

Lol at this stupid comment. You are comparing the womens game to the mens game of course there is going to be two different standards.

Who was closer to their best, the very late blooming Navratilova in the late 80s, coming off 5 years off dominance that was only ended only once Graf emerged, or grandpa Agassi in 2004-2005, 5-6 years removed from his greatest tennis ever. Pretty easy call.

 

[gsharma]

Agassi was and is a great player but Federer could beat any version of Agassi, including 95 or 99, although those undoubtably would have given him the best challenge out of any year of Agassi.

You simply can not say that; this is completely in the realm of hypothetical and fantasy. To disprove your theory, I can argue that even though Federer was 24 in the 2005 US Open final and Aggasi was 35, Agassi took Fed to four sets and had a break to go up two sets to one in the third set. I can argue that if a 35 year old Agassi, suffering from sciatic nerve issues, can do that, then a 29 year old Agassi in 1999 would definitely beat Federer.

Of course, all of this is nonsense because this is all hypothetical. So, lets just stick to the facts. I said Agassi in 2005 was not the same player that he was in 1999. That is a fact. You saying Federer would have beaten Agassi of any era is simply day-dreaming, which can't be proven. Stick to the facts my friend.

 

[gsharma]

Yet he was still good enough to make a Slam Final. Use your brain more instead of making stupid comments.

Listen, you ******, rather than calling every one's comments stupid, pay attention. Because Agassi reached a Slam final doesn't prove he was playing his best tennis. In fact, I can argue that because Agassi didn't win the final, and because his best result in a slam is a win, he wasn't playing his best tennis.

By simple logic, Agassi's best result in a slam is a win and unless he wins a slam, he hasn't achieved his best result.

So, learn to read, dissect and make arguments before you start calling everyone stupid, which shows that you are probably another 15 year old with too much time and acne.

 

[lambielspins]

You simply can not say that; this is completely in the realm of hypothetical and fantasy. To disprove your theory, I can argue that even though Federer was 24 in the 2005 US Open final and Aggasi was 35, Agassi took Fed to four sets and had a break to go up two sets to one in the third set. I can argue that if a 35 year old Agassi, suffering from sciatic nerve issues, can do that, then a 29 year old Agassi in 1999 would definitely beat Federer.

That is a failed argument since the older Agassi you refer to was 0-8 vs Federer, and was slammed in about half of those matches. For the match you refer to which Agassi still wasnt remotedly close to winning by the way (he was slammed 6-1 in the 4th set and completely overpowered the rest of the match other than the middle set and a half), I could refer to the 2005 Australian Open match on Agassi's favorite surface where he was thumped in straight sets, or the 2003 year end Masters final (and Agassi had been #1 and won a slam that year) where Agassi got destroyed in straights including a bagel, or the Dubai match early in 2005 where Agassi got only 4 games. Even the aging Agassi you refer to on the whole was not nearly close enough to Federer to say with any reasonable logic he would definitely be better or regularly beating Federer at any point in his career. Agassi also had other huge advantages for a match like that he would never have had to the same degree back in 95 or 99- absolutely no pressure and nothing to lose, Federer with all his reputation at stake playing an aging great in the final, the almost hostile NY crowd heavily behind the sentimental old dog in one of his last kicks at the can, etc...

As I mentioned already even the Agassi of 1999 was losing to Vince Spadea and going to 5 sets with a past his prime Medvedev and Todd Martin in slam finals, so Federer at his best > any version of Agassi.

 

[darrinbaker00]

As long as Roger Federer is still RNB (I'll let you all figure out what that stands for), I can't call him GOAT.

 

[drakulie]

Stick to the facts my friend.

Here they are:

 

[ronalditop]

Navaratilova carried too much testosterone to be looked @ as a female therefore i see her success in the Women's game as clearly unfair.

I was going to say the same thing. She must take something in the old days that changed her from a female to a male.. Look at her body before she was a player and slowly change to a MALE tennis player.. I don't think she's considered FEMALE at all.. !!

I think the williams sisters are in the same "situation" as navratilova.

 

[darrinbaker00]

I think the williams sisters are in the same "situation" as navratilova.

Don't you have a porn DVD to watch?

 

[LeftSHBH]

You forget that Fed beat Sampras in Wimby of 2001 4th round

 

[gsharma]

That is a failed argument since the older Agassi you refer to was 0-8 vs Federer, and was slammed in about half of those matches. For the match you refer to which Agassi still wasnt remotedly close to winning by the way (he was slammed 6-1 in the 4th set and completely overpowered the rest of the match other than the middle set and a half), I could refer to the 2005 Australian Open match on Agassi's favorite surface where he was thumped in straight sets, or the 2003 year end Masters final (and Agassi had been #1 and won a slam that year) where Agassi got destroyed in straights including a bagel, or the Dubai match early in 2005 where Agassi got only 4 games. Even the aging Agassi you refer to on the whole was not nearly close enough to Federer to say with any reasonable logic he would definitely be better or regularly beating Federer at any point in his career. Agassi also had other huge advantages for a match like that he would never have had to the same degree back in 95 or 99- absolutely no pressure and nothing to lose, Federer with all his reputation at stake playing an aging great in the final, the almost hostile NY crowd heavily behind the sentimental old dog in one of his last kicks at the can, etc...

You keep telling me how Federer did so well against Agassi in 2005 (and once in 2003). Great but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying Agassi was not the player he was between 1999 and 2001. In my opinion, those were his best years. Federer and Agassi didn't really play during Agassi's best years so you can tell me all that you want but there is no way to PROVE WITH EVIDENCE that Federer would have beaten Agassi in his prime. You can again go into the hypothetical realm but I would like to stick with the facts. There is no way to prove that Federer is his prime was better than Agassi in his prime because they didn't really play each other. Btw, 1-2 matches don't really count.

As I mentioned already even the Agassi of 1999 was losing to Vince Spadea and going to 5 sets with a past his prime Medvedev and Todd Martin in slam finals, so Federer at his best > any version of Agassi.

Tennis is not transitive logic such that if Agassi beats Safin and Safin beats Federer then Agassi beats Federer. So, Agassi loosing to Spadea or whoever else has no bearing on Federer.

My statement was that Agassi in 2005 (and even 2003) was way past his prime of 1999-2001. If you can disprove that, then lets talk otherwise you are wasting time arguing about things that I'm not even saying (such as Federer being better than Agassi).

 

[lambielspins]

There is no way to prove that Federer is his prime was better than Agassi in his prime

15 slams > 8 slams. There is your proof. Not that Federer is done at 15 though, he will almost certainly end up with over twice what Agassi has.

 

[gsharma]

Here they are:

You really are some teenage kid. If you are going to quote me then quote my entire statement not just some chunk that is convenient to you. I'm not even talking about Federer here; my statement concerns Agassi's peak years but it looks like people like you, who can't think of anyone else but Fed all day, love to bring Fed into every conversation.

By the way, you telling me about facts sounds really funny considering how you have been spreading lies about Nadal doing steroids based on some stupid youtube video. I think you need to get back to your fulltime job of Nadal-bashing.

 

[gsharma]

15 slams > 8 slams. There is your proof. Not that Federer is done at 15 though, he will almost certainly end up with over twice what Agassi has.

That's fantastic but let me remind you of what my original statement was:
My statement was that Agassi in 2005 (and even 2003) was way past his prime of 1999-2001. If you can disprove that, then lets talk otherwise you are wasting time arguing about things that I'm not even saying (such as Federer being better than Agassi).

I'm not even remotely interested in Federer and you seem hell-bent upon proving that Federer is better than Agassi.

 

[lambielspins]

That's fantastic but let me remind you of what my original statement was:
My statement was that Agassi in 2005 (and even 2003) was way past his prime of 1999-2001. If you can disprove that, then lets talk otherwise you are wasting time arguing about things that I'm not even saying (such as Federer being better than Agassi).

I'm not even remotely interested in Federer and you seem hell-bent upon proving that Federer is better than Agassi.

So if you are not comparing them then what difference does it make that Agassi wasnt in his prime in 2005. What is the point of what you are trying to argue anyway. Just as Agassi in 2005 wasnt the same Agassi as 1999, Becker of 1995 who Sampras beat in the final wasnt the same Becker as 1989 either.

 

[380pistol]

and he was 32 when Sampras beat him in 2002. Your point is????

His point is Sampras beat Agassi whe Dre was 20, 25, 29 AND 32. Fed did what??? When Dre was 34 and 35???

Sampras beat 2 players, which would be considered true "greats of the game" in slam finals. (Agassi/Becker)

Federer has also beaten 2 players, which would be considered true "greats of the game" in slam finals.(Agassi/nadal).

keep trying.

Hahahahahahahahah.................. hohohohohohohohohohoh.............. hihihihihihihihihihihihihihi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was the Agassi Fed beat, the same one as Sampras???
And why ignore rds 1-6, cuz you only play one match in slams?!?
And last I checked Pete was 4-1 vs Dre in slam finals, Rog's record vs Nadal is...???

Back to the drawing board Quack!!!

 

[380pistol]

Funny how when Graf was beating 30-32 Navratilova regularly in slam finals Martina was "old" even though she won all but 2 of her slams between ages 25 and 33. Yet Agassi was somehow not old and an amazing win at 34 and 35. Double standards galore.

Chelsea Idiot getting smacked around and resorts too.....

Lol at this stupid comment. You are comparing the womens game to the mens game of course there is going to be two different standards.

The discussion was age and playing level at said age. You get slaped, and chage the topic to gender. Hohohohohohohohohoho................. hihihihihihihihihihihihi................. hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[NamRanger]

That's fantastic but let me remind you of what my original statement was:
My statement was that Agassi in 2005 (and even 2003) was way past his prime of 1999-2001. If you can disprove that, then lets talk otherwise you are wasting time arguing about things that I'm not even saying (such as Federer being better than Agassi).

I'm not even remotely interested in Federer and you seem hell-bent upon proving that Federer is better than Agassi.

Andre never had a prime. If he did, he would have been absolutely destructive.

 

[380pistol]

Andre never had a prime. If he did, he would have been absolutely destructive.

It started in July 1994. It went into September of 1995 (2 slams, 1 SF, 1 QF, 5 masters, 30 weeks at #1), and we know who put end to that.

 

[zagor]

Roger Federer is the greatest male tennis player of all time while Martina Navratilova is the widely recognized greatest female tennis player of all time.

Who is greater between the two?

I don't think you can really compare women't tennis with men's but if we do Navratilova has a greater career(I mean what 9 Wimbledons? just crazy),has better numbers than Fed.

 

[NamRanger]

It started in July 1994. It went into September of 1995 (2 slams, 1 SF, 1 QF, 5 masters, 30 weeks at #1), and we know who put end to that.

A one year prime. Hilarious.



Agassi never had a prime; he wasted his youth years and by the time he got mentally and physically fit he just wasn't the same athlete anymore.