Boris Becker: Federer’s Fourth Set Comeback at Wimbledon Shows GOAT Status

[Mayonnaise]

I only included a small sampling of people I knew for sure who played. You would have to do exhaustive research to see just how many people picked who.

But you said I didn't value 500 titles because I didn't mention them! By the same logic, nobody else thinks Laver is the GOAT because you didn't mention them! :lol:

But, my point was using the argument X # of people said Y is GOAT so he is GOAT is not very good reasoning considering a bunch of people say that about all of the GOAT candidates. Throw in sports writers etc it becomes even more convoluted.

I agree. I was just letting people know what legends thought

You have really dig deep and analyze everything to make determinations on who is the best objectively, which is very tough to do comparing the 20s to the 50s/60s to now in terms of how to weigh everything.

True. And you can't just ignore 500/250 titles because your favorite player didn't win them

But if you look at #s and equivalents to control for Majors and Big (masters level) titles, ranking systems for YE #1s and such I feel Laver, Gonzales, and Rosewall come out well ahead of everyone else.

How? Laver has just 13 Majors against professional players. Gonzales has 15, and Rosewall has 19 (only 4 of which were in a full field).

 

[coloskier]

What is this "game of 90's"? It tended to vary according to surface. The 1990s had Muster on clay, and he's very close to Nadal in terms of game style.

So you just proved that Nadal in the 90's would win at clay and nothing else, since Muster was the same.

 

[Logic]

How? Laver has just 13 Majors against professional players. Gonzales has 15, and Rosewall has 19 (only 4 of which were in a full field).

Yes, but note that, as I have pointed out before, there were only 3 Pro Majors per year, and no YEC until the 1971 WTC finals.

Certainly, I think the resumés of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales and Federer are close, and picking any one of them as the best (by a bit) is not unreasonable (and will probably be a matter of taste).

 

[Mayonnaise]

Yes, but note that, as I have pointed out before, there were only 3 Pro Majors per year, and no YEC until the 1971 WTC finals.

That is irrelevant, because the poster said it's obvious "looking at the #s of big events". That's far from true.

 

[Logic]

That is irrelevant, because the poster said it's obvious "looking at the #s of big events". That's far from true.

Yes, but the reasonable interpretation of his statement would have been "the big events, weighted appropriately".

I think you knew this, as you did some behind-the-scenes weighting of big titles anyway, by ignoring Amateur majors (i.e. weighting them as 0 compared to Pro/Open Majors), and counting Pro/Open Majors together (i.e. weighting them as 1 compared to each other).

 

[Gonzo_style]

Becker overreacting as usual...

 

[Mayonnaise]

Yes, but the reasonable interpretation of his statement would have been "the big events, weighted appropriately".

Why would I interpret something he didn't say? That would be hallucination, not interpretation.

I think you knew this, as you did some behind-the-scenes weighting of big titles anyway, by ignoring Amateur majors (i.e. weighting them as 0 compared to Pro/Open Majors), and counting Pro/Open Majors together (i.e. weighting them as 1 compared to each other).

I didn't do that, either. I was just specifying which titles were legitimately big. Saying Amateur Slams count would be like counting Junior Slams.

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

That is irrelevant, because the poster said it's obvious "looking at the #s of big events". That's far from true.

But if you look at #s and equivalents to control for Majors and Big (masters level) titles, ranking systems for YE #1s and such I feel Laver, Gonzales, and Rosewall come out well ahead of everyone else.

 

[Mayonnaise]

But if you look at #s and equivalents to control for Majors and Big (masters level) titles, ranking systems for YE #1s and such I feel Laver, Gonzales, and Rosewall come out well ahead of everyone else.

What does "equivalents to control for Majors" even mean? And what rankings systems? :lol:

 

[Logic]

Why would I interpret something he didn't say? That would be hallucination, not interpretation.

This is what he said:

But if you look at #s and equivalents to control for Majors and Big (masters level) titles,...

He says that one should look at the numbers of different big titles, but he didn't say whether or not they should be compared directly (i.e. just lumped together and counted up).
Indeed, this interpretation would be silly, as you would, for example, be directly comparing majors and masters (see the text which I have emboldened).
Hence my point that a reasonable interpretation involves appropriate considerations or weightings.

I didn't do that, either. I was just specifying which titles were legitimately big. Saying Amateur Slams count would be like counting Junior Slams.

Most people still count Amateur Majors as big titles, just not as big as Pro/Open Majors - hence why one needs to weight them appropriately and not just dismiss them.

The text in bold is absurd hyperbole. Are you really comparing the likes of Laver in '62 to a modern day Junior?

 

[Logic]

But if you look at #s and equivalents to control for Majors and Big (masters level) titles, ranking systems for YE #1s and such I feel Laver, Gonzales, and Rosewall come out well ahead of everyone else.

This is not quite true.

To give a more detailed version of what Mayo was saying:

Rosewall: 4 Amateur Majors, 15 Pro Majors, 4 Open Majors + 2 WCT finals
Gonzales: 2 Amateur Majors, 15 Pro Majors
Laver: 6 Amateur Majors, 8 Pro Majors, 5 Open Majors
Federer: 17 Open majors + 6 WTF

Given reasonable weightings for different types of major etc., I think it's clear that Rosewall/Gonzales/Laver are not well ahead of, for example, Federer. Perhaps they are slightly ahead, or perhaps slightly behind, but it's certainly close.

 

[Mayonnaise]

This is what he said:



He says that one should look at the numbers of different big titles, but he didn't say whether or not they should be compared directly.
Indeed, this interpretation would be silly, as you would, for example, be directly comparing majors and masters (see the text which I have emboldened).
Hence my point that a reasonable interpretation involves appropriate considerations or weightings.

And I think it's untrue. Laver doesn't have 23 Majors.

Most people still count Amateur Majors as big titles, just not as big as Pro/Open Majors - hence why one needs to weight them appropriately and not just dismiss them.

I haven't "dismissed" them anymore than I've dismissed today's Masters and 500/250 events.

The text in bold is absurd hyperbole. Are you really comparing the likes of Laver in '62 to a modern day Junior?

Even Federer was a junior, at one point.

 

[Logic]

And I think it's untrue. Laver doesn't have 23 Majors.

Nor does he have the "13 majors" with which you credit him.

You either have to say:

Laver has 6 Amateur Majors + 8 Pro Majors + 5 Open Majors

or (with a weighting):

Laver has (6*(weight of Amateur Major) + 8*(weight of Pro Majors) + 5*(weight of Open Major)) Majors

or (the least informative):

Laver has 19 Majors of different types

I haven't "dismissed" them anymore than I've dismissed today's Masters and 500/250 events.

You have ignored them, even though they are still Majors (unlike Masters/500/250s). They should still be taken into account as Majors, even if weighted lower than Pro/Open Majors.

Even Federer was a junior, at one point.

Yes, but are comparing 23/24 year-old Laver (from 1962) to a junior?

 

[Mayonnaise]

Nor does he have the "13 majors" with which you credit him.

You either have to say:

Laver has 6 Amateur Majors + 8 Pro Majors + 5 Open Majors

or (with a weighting):

Laver has (6*(weight of Amateur Major) + 8*(weight of Pro Majors) + 5*(weight of Open Major)) Majors

or (the least informative):

Laver has 19 Majors of different types

Why so? Should I list Federer's Masters and Junior Slams, too, and say they are different kinds of titles?

You have ignored them, even though they are still Majors (unlike Masters/500/250s). They should still be taken into account as Majors, even if weighted lower than Pro/Open Majors.

I don't count them as Majors, and nor should anyone who knows them for what they are. Today's Masters are more difficult to win than Amateur Slams, because they were played for my Amateurs. Pretty self-explanatory, really.

Yes, but are comparing 23/24 year-old Laver (from 1962) to a junior?

No, I compared an Amateur Slam to a Junior Slam. There's a difference.

 

[Logic]

Why so? Should I list Federer's Masters and Junior Slams, too, and say they are different kinds of titles?

If you want to be super-detailed, go ahead.

The point is, the previous posters was talking about Majors which means you should include Amateur Majors, because they are still Majors.

Your point about "Junior Majors" is a silly one, because by the context of the conversation you know that we are obviously talking about adult tournaments, just as it is obvious that we are talking about singles and not doubles.

I don't count them as Majors, and nor should anyone who knows them for what they are. Today's Masters are more difficult to win than Amateur Slams, because they were played for my Amateurs. Pretty self-explanatory, really.

This is a very over-simplistic view.

For example, Budge won the Grand Slam in 1938, turned Pro in 1939 and dominated the Pro Tour, showing that he likely would have done well in the Majors even in an Open Field.
So by completely negating his Amateur Majors you are unfairly penalizing him for the Pro-Am divide (as everyone had to start off in the Amateurs, and so lost some prime years to them).

As always context is key, and Amateur Majors often did have major value (pun intended) and should not just be cast aside with a couple of generalisations.

No, I compared an Amateur Slam to a Junior Slam. There's a difference.

Yes, but you could clearly see my point.

I'll spell it out for you, though, to make it more clear:

Comparing an Amateur Slam to a Junior Slam is ridiculous.
Why? Because the likes of 23/24 year-old Laver were winning Amateur Majors, whereas no Junior Major winner has ever come close to that level.
There is also the matter of prestige, historical significance, etc...

 

[Algo]

in history his 0-1 head to heads against randoms will not be as staining as a potential losing head to head against other future HOFs.



duh

That can only put the winner over, not the loser down (unless it's a beatdown).
There's no way to take any good out of a loss to a nobody, though.

 

[Mayonnaise]

If you want to be super-detailed, go ahead.

The point is, the previous posters was talking about Majors which means you should include Amateur Majors, because they are still Majors.

Your point about "Junior Majors" is a silly one, because by the context of the conversation you know that we are obviously talking about adult tournaments, just as it is obvious that we are talking about singles and not doubles.

How is it obvious we're talking about adult tournaments? I thought it was obvious we were talking about professional Majors, and not Amateur-level ones.

This is a very over-simplistic view.

For example, Budge won the Grand Slam in 1938, turned Pro in 1939 and dominated the Pro Tour, showing that he likely would have done well in the Majors even in an Open Field.

Nadal won Clay Masters in 2005, and immediately won the French Open. So Masters = Slams?

So by completely negating his Amateur Majors you are unfairly penalizing him for the Pro-Am divide (as everyone had to start off in the Amateurs, and so lost some prime years to them).

As always context is key, and Amateur Majors often did have major value (pun intended) and should not just be cast aside with a couple of generalisations.

I didn't cast them aside. I just don't think they have as much value, considering they are for amateurs. Just like I don't cast aside Masters.

Yes, but you could clearly see my point.

I'll spell it out for you, though, to make it more clear:

Comparing an Amateur Slam to a Junior Slam is ridiculous.
Why? Because the likes of 23/24 year-old Laver were winning Amateur Majors, whereas no Junior Major winner has ever come close to that level.
There is also the matter of prestige, historical significance, etc...

So, if prime Federer were to play some challenger tournaments, would that be an equivalent of a Major? It's about the field, not an individual player.

 

[Logic]

Nadal won Clay Masters in 2005, and immediately won the French Open. So Masters = Slams?

No, that's a complete straw-man of my argument.

Rather, I was saying that the value of a tournament depends on the context. I didn't say Budge's Amateur Majors were the equivalent of Pro or Open Majors, but rather that, given Budge's level compared to the Pros, they had more value than one might naively assign them.

I didn't cast them aside. I just don't think they have as much value, considering they are for amateurs. Just like I don't cast aside Masters.

They may not have as much value, but nor do they have so little that you should ignore them (since Pro and Open Majors don't have identical values and yet you considered both).

So, if prime Federer were to play some challenger tournaments, would that be an equivalent of a Major? It's about the field, not an individual player.

True - I was using one player as an example.

Now, if you go and compare the field at, say Wimbledon 1962, can you honestly tell me that it's at the same level as a Junior Major?

 

[Mayonnaise]

No, that's a complete straw-man of my argument.

Rather, I was saying that the value of a tournament depends on the context. I didn't say Budge's Amateur Majors were the equivalent of Pro or Open Majors, but rather that, given Budge's level compared to the Pros, they had more value than one might naively assign them.

No, they do not. It's still an amateur Slam played in a weak field. Would a Challenger event be big if Federer won it right before winning a US Open?

They may not have as much value, but nor do they have so little that you should ignore them (since Pro and Open Majors don't have identical values and yet you considererd both).

Don't presume to tell me what I can and can not ignore when you don't know what my frame of reference is. When my frame of reference is Open Era Slams, they are certainly negligible. Maybe if I was talking about 500 titles, I'd definitely consider them.

True - I was using one player as an example.

Now, if you go and compare the field at, say Wimbledon 1962, can you honestly tell me that it's at the same level as a Junior Major?

One exception does not prove a rule. Should we count the 2009 Cincinnati as a Major because it had a great field?

 

[Logic]

No, they do not. It's still an amateur Slam played in a weak field. Would a Challenger event be big if Federer won it right before winning a US Open?

Again, this is a straw-man.

A challenger has a a rough value which we know by the ATP hierarchy of tournaments.

Back then, there was no clear way of comparing the relative value of an Amateur Major and a Pro Major, so we have to consider context.

Don't presume to tell me what I can and can not ignore when you don't know what my frame of reference is. When my frame of reference is Open Era Slams, they are certainly negligible. Maybe if I was talking about 500 titles, I'd definitely consider them.

The text in bold is merely your opinion.

In my opinion, Amateur Majors aren't negligible when compared to Open Majors, nor are they comparable to 500s.

No need to be hostile. This is a forum - we are merely exchanging opinions. The only thing I presume is that whenever each of us presents a claim "..." (e.g. when I said "you shouldn't ignore..."), we really the mean "IMO, ...". To otherwise state one's opinion as fact, after all, would be arrogance.

One exception does not prove a rule. Should we count the 2009 Cincinnati as a Major because it had a great field?

That wasn't the exception, it was an example of the general rule.

Go and look at all the fields of amateur majors from, for example, the 1952-62 and tell me how many are equivalent to a Junior Major (as you claimed).

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

This is not quite true.

To give a more detailed version of what Mayo was saying:

Rosewall: 4 Amateur Majors, 15 Pro Majors, 4 Open Majors + 2 WCT finals
Gonzales: 2 Amateur Majors, 15 Pro Majors
Laver: 6 Amateur Majors, 8 Pro Majors, 5 Open Majors
Federer: 17 Open majors + 6 WTF

Given reasonable weightings for different types of major etc., I think it's clear that Rosewall/Gonzales/Laver are not well ahead of, for example, Federer. Perhaps they are slightly ahead, or perhaps slightly behind, but it's certainly close.

Laver has a lot of titles which were even bigger than the AO/FO were in the 68-71 range and especially 68 where there was only 3 open era majors.
Examples include PSW in 68 and 70, Sydney Dunlop in 70, and Philadelphia in 70 all drawing better fields than the AO/FO. Additionally, Laver won the MSG Champions Classic in 70 and 71 which was far bigger than the FO/AO were those years as well as no one showed up for anything besides USO/Wimb in terms of traditional slams.

If we are going to weight dismiss Amateur Slams (as Mayo is doing, after telling me I shouldn't dismiss 500/250 titles and saying he ascribes value to them), we need to weight some of these as the equivalent of a Major, since they were top 4 titles in a given year.

1968 PSW was the 4th major replacing the amateur AO
1969 everyone showed up for all slams and Laver beat them all
1970 the Champions Classic in place of the AO
and either PSW, Philadelphia, or Sydney Dunlop in place of FO (take your pick Laver won all 3)
1971 the Champions Classic again over the FO.

So those 4 substitutions leave you with:

17 Majors each for Fed and Laver (8 Pro, 5 Open, 4 Open Equivalents)

You also have to value the 4th biggest event from 63-67 each as a major too since Laver only had 3 pro slams. Then in addition you need to value a 5th biggest event for each of Laver's years to be equivalent to the WTF and you also need to assign some weight to the Amateur Slams. Even, without doing any of that what you have is:

Fed - 17 Majors, 6 WTF, 21 Masters, 5 YE #1
Laver - 17 Majors, 0 WTF, 40 Masters, 7 YE #1

Mayo has said himself he weighs 2 WTF = 1 slam and 5 Masters = 1 slam
so by this you have the equivalent of 7 more slams for Fed (3 from WTF and 4 from Masters) and 8 for Laver (from 40 Masters).

That puts you at 25 Majors for Laver to 24 for Fed plus 2 more years as YE #1.

Additionally Laver has a CYGS at the pro level, amateur level, and open era level and this the bare minimum edge for Laver as you have not even done the adjustments for converting some of Laver's Masters level tournaments into Majors or WTF, as some of them would be the 4th biggest event in 63-67, or the 5th biggest every year of his career, or given any value at all to the amateur slams.

So taking a bare minimum level for Laver and using Mayo's own valuations of
Masters to Slams and WTF to slams (which are higher than I use), Laver still comes out with a lead, hence why I said he's well ahead because his lead could only grow from here.

Also I don't use 500/250 level titles, but since Mayo obviously does
Laver has 200 total titles to Fed's 79.

You could go through a similar analysis for Rosewall and Gonzales and see similar results, a floor level Rosewall/Gonzales above Federer. A floor level Tilden is still below Federer, but a ceiling level one is ahead so that comes to some weight adjustments which is why I have them as equals, but lean Tilden and have Laver/Gonzales/Rosewall as my clear top tier.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Again, this is a straw-man.

A challenger has a a rough value which we know by the ATP hierarchy of tournaments.

Back then, there was no clear way of comparing the relative value of an Amateur Major and a Pro Major, so we have to consider context.

There is a clear ATP hierarchy saying WTF > Masters > Olympics. Do you agree to that? If you don't, I made a perfectly valid point, because you're disregarding the ATP hierarchy anyway.

The text in bold is merely your opinion.

In my opinion, Amateur Majors aren't negligible when compared to Open Majors, nor are they comparable to 500s.

No need to be hostile. This is a forum - we are merely exchanging opinions. The only thing I presume is that whenever each of us presents a claim "..." (e.g. when I said "you shouldn't ignore..."), we really the mean "IMO, ...". To otherwise state one's opinion as fact, after all, would be arrogance.

I'm being hostile? You're the one that's been calling everything I say "silly" and telling me what I was thinking. You're the one that's being hostile. And yes, Ameteur Slams are as negligible to Open Era Slams as Masters 500 titles are, considering the strength of the fields. The only difference is that you couldn't play Pro Slams + amateur Slams back then, while you can play Slams + 500s today.

That wasn't the exception, it was an example of the general rule.

Go and look at all the fields of amateur majors from, for example, the 1952-62 and tell me how many are equivalent to a Junior Major (as you claimed).

Well, go look at the fields of all the Masters 1000 events from 2004-2014 and you'll see they had a much fuller field than the Amateur Slams did.

 

[Logic]

Laver has a lot of titles which were even bigger than the AO/FO were in the 68-71 range and especially 68 where there was only 3 open era majors.
Examples include PSW in 68 and 70, Sydney Dunlop in 70, and Philadelphia in 70 all drawing better fields than the AO/FO. Additionally, Laver won the MSG Champions Classic in 70 and 71 which was far bigger than the FO/AO were those years as well as no one showed up for anything besides USO/Wimb in terms of traditional slams.

If we are going to weight dismiss Amateur Slams (as Mayo is doing, after telling me I shouldn't dismiss 500/250 titles and saying he ascribes value to them), we need to weight some of these as the equivalent of a Major, since they were top 4 titles in a given year.

1968 PSW was the 4th major replacing the amateur AO
1969 everyone showed up for all slams and Laver beat them all
1970 the Champions Classic in place of the AO
and either PSW, Philadelphia, or Sydney Dunlop in place of FO (take your pick Laver won all 3)
1971 the Champions Classic again over the FO.

So those 4 substitutions leave you with:

17 Majors each for Fed and Laver (8 Pro, 5 Open, 4 Open Equivalents)

You also have to value the 4th biggest event from 63-67 each as a major too since Laver only had 3 pro slams. Then in addition you need to value a 5th biggest event for each of Laver's years to be equivalent to the WTF and you also need to assign some weight to the Amateur Slams. Even, without doing any of that what you have is:

Fed - 17 Majors, 6 WTF, 21 Masters, 5 YE #1
Laver - 17 Majors, 0 WTF, 40 Masters, 7 YE #1

Mayo has said himself he weighs 2 WTF = 1 slam and 5 Masters = 1 slam
so by this you have the equivalent of 7 more slams for Fed (3 from WTF and 4 from Masters) and 8 for Laver (from 40 Masters).

That puts you at 25 Majors for Laver to 24 for Fed plus 2 more years as YE #1.

Additionally Laver has a CYGS at the pro level, amateur level, and open era level and this the bare minimum edge for Laver as you have not even done the adjustments for converting some of Laver's Masters level tournaments into Majors or WTF, as some of them would be the 4th biggest event in 63-67, or the 5th biggest every year of his career, or given any value at all to the amateur slams.

So taking a bare minimum level for Laver and using Mayo's own valuations of
Masters to Slams and WTF to slams (which are higher than I use), Laver still comes out with a lead, hence why I said he's well ahead because his lead could only grow from here.

Also I don't use 500/250 level titles, but since Mayo obviously does
Laver has 200 total titles to Fed's 79.

You could go through a similar analysis for Rosewall and Gonzales and see similar results, a floor level Rosewall/Gonzales above Federer. A floor level Tilden is still below Federer, but a ceiling level one is ahead so that comes to some weight adjustments which is why I have them as equals, but lean Tilden and have Laver/Gonzales/Rosewall as my clear top tier.

I disagree with much of the above - some of your analysis of "big titles", your weightings, Mayo's weightings, etc. Of course, this is just a difference in opinion, and I don't have the energy to contest each bit of your post.

But do you genuinely think Laver et al. are "way" ahead of Federer?
If so, fine, that's your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
Just from a simplistic view, they all seem to have between 20-25 big titles (Majors, WTF and equivalent; ignoring masters and below). This isn't a thorough analyisis, of course, but I think it is a good heuristic to say that Laver et al. and Federer are certainly "close" in achievements (who is better becomes much more complicated and down to opinion).

 

[Mayonnaise]

17 Majors each for Fed and Laver (8 Pro, 5 Open, 4 Open Equivalents)

1. What are these "4 Open Equivalents"?
2. Pro Slams are worth lesser than Open Era Slams
3. What about Federer's Slam finals/semifinals/quarterfinals?
4. How many of Laver's titles were exhibitions?

 

[Logic]

There is a clear ATP hierarchy saying WTF > Masters > Olympics. Do you agree to that? If you don't, I made a perfectly valid point, because you're disregarding the ATP hierarchy anyway.

I'm happy with the ATP hierarchy.

But there was no similar official guideline on the relative values of Amateur and Pro Majors back then.

I'm being hostile? You're the one that's been calling everything I say "silly" and telling me what I was thinking. You're the one that's being hostile. And yes, Ameteur Slams are as negligible to Open Era Slams as Masters 500 titles are, considering the strength of the fields. The only difference is that you couldn't play Pro Slams + amateur Slams back then, while you can play Slams + 500s today.

If you felt I was being hostile or if I called you silly when you were expressing a reasonable opinion, then I apologise - I did not intend that.
The only place I recall saying you were being silly is in comparing Amateur Majors to Junior Majors (which, you have to admit, is a bit silly in the sense that it is quite extreme hyperbole). Also, I never told you what you were thinking - I merely disagreed with what you were thinking.

Again, you may consider Amateur Majors relatively negligible, but I (and certain tennis historians) do not. It's your opinion - you're entitled to it - but I hope that you've looked at the context of the Pro-Am divide in detail before you reached your conclusion.

Well, go look at the fields of all the Masters 1000 events from 2004-2014 and you'll see they had a much fuller field than the Amateur Slams did.

That may or may not be true, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you claimed that Amateur and Junior Slams had comparable fields.

Can you at the very least admit this was complete hyperbole on your part, or do you feel that it is a point of pride never to concede an argument (much like 5555 and your good friend Federator)?:

 

[Mayonnaise]

I'm happy with the ATP hierarchy.

But there was no similar official guideline on the relative values of Amateur and Pro Majors back then.

So you think Masters > Olympics?

The only place I recall saying you were being silly is in comparing Amateur Majors to Junior Majors (which, you have to admit, is a bit silly in the sense that it is quite extreme hyperbole). Also, I never told you what you were thinking - I merely disagreed with what you were thinking.

That obviously was hyperbole to make a point. I'm just saying Open Era Slams and Amateur Slams are in different leagues, just like Junior Slams are a different league.

That may or may not be true

I assure you, it is.

it doesn't take away from the fact that you claimed that Amateur and Junior Slams had comparable fields.

I never claimed that. I was making an analogy.

Can you at the very least admit this was complete hyperbole on your part, or do you feel that it is a point of pride never to concede an argument (much like 5555 and your good friend Federator)?:

Of course it was hyperbole, made to make a point that Open Era Slams were in a different league altogether.

 

[Mayonnaise]

I disagree with much of the above - some of your analysis of "big titles", your weightings, Mayo's weightings, etc. Of course, this is just a difference in opinion, and I don't have the energy to contest each bit of your post.

But do you genuinely think Laver et al. are "way" ahead of Federer?
If so, fine, that's your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
Just from a simplistic view, they all seem to have between 20-25 big titles (Majors, WTF and equivalent; ignoring masters and below). This isn't a thorough analyisis, of course, but I think it is a good heuristic to say that Laver et al. and Federer are certainly "close" in achievements (who is better becomes much more complicated and down to opinion).

Spicy is trolling. He has already admitted Federer is the GOAT. Here is evidence:

Neither win was amazing, but I'd rank a straight set drubbing of the GOAT coming off an illness over a 4 set right win over a good player coming if a surgery as better and a 20 year old pre-prime Nole and 32 year old post-prime Federer as equal.

 

[Logic]

So you think Masters > Olympics?

In terms of what they are currently worth on the ATP, yes.

In terms of what they will be worth in terms of historical prestige - that remains to be seen when they have a bit more history.

Of course it was hyperbole, made to make a point that Open Era Slams were in a different league altogether.

Fine, as long as you admit that. I can see that you have a very low opinion indeed on the value of Amateur Majors. I, and others, disagree.


This is a general side-point (separate from our discussion): I, like you, am a huge Fed fan, but there is no need to try to diminish the achievements of past greats like Laver to make Fed look better. They (Laver, Rosewall, Fed etc.) are all most likely GOAT contenders, so why not let's appreciate them.

 

[Mayonnaise]

In terms of what they are currently worth on the ATP, yes.

In terms of what they will be worth in terms of historical prestige - that remains to be seen when they have a bit more history.



Fine, as long as you admit that. I can see that you have a very low opinion indeed on the value of Amateur Majors. I, and others, disagree.


This is a general side-point (separate from our discussion): I, like you, am a huge Fed fan, but there is no need to try to diminish the achievements of past greats like Laver to make Fed look better. They (Laver, Rosewall, Fed etc.) are all most likely GOAT contenders, so why not let's appreciate them.

Not diminishing them. But giving value to Amateur Slams would make Emerson > Gonzales.

 

[Logic]

Not diminishing them. But giving value to Amateur Slams would make Emerson > Gonzales.

No - it depends how much value you give to them.

If you give them a reasonable value, then Gonzales > Emerson.

If you give them no value, then any 1 slam winner in the Open Era > Emerson.
Since this, like Emerson > Gonzales, is a bit silly, then we must conclude that it is best to give them some value, but less than Pre/Open majors, which is what I have said from the beginning.

 

[Chanwan]

I personally don't rate Laver's amateur slams that high as he clearly wasn't the best player those years (not even 62, he got his *** kicked as a pro for most of 63).
However, it's obvious that he would have won a number slams, had he and the other pro's been allowed to play the slams in the mid 60's.

 

[Mayonnaise]

No - it depends how much value you give to them.

If you give them a reasonable value, then Gonzales > Emerson.

If you give them no value, then any 1 slam winner in the Open Era > Emerson.
Since this, like Emerson > Gonzales, is a bit silly, then we must conclude that it is best to give them some value, but less than Pre/Open majors, which is what I have said from the beginning.

You're so logical, it's annoying And I mean that as a compliment.

 

[Logic]

You're so logical, it's annoying And I mean that as a compliment.

Thank you (I try to live up to my name).

You are too, for the most part.

I notice, though, that you sometimes (I assume deliberately) place well-disguised traps that "twist" logic in order to trip up your opponent, and I must admit, it required plenty of checking on my part in order to avoid them this time. Fun though!

 

[Mayonnaise]

Thank you (I try to live up to my name).

You are too, for the most part.

I notice, though, that you sometimes (I assume deliberately) place well-disguised traps that "twist" logic in order to trip up your opponent, and I must admit, it required plenty of checking on my part in order to avoid them this time. Fun though!

I just use other posters' false reasoning against them

 

[britam25]

Actually Buddy, the topic of the thread is more about Novak than it is about Rafa, Brother. Too easy.

Uh, no, the topic was your ridiculous lie that Nadal does not choke, I refuted that bit of nonsense instantly. Nice try, however.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Uh, no, the topic was your ridiculous lie that Nadal does not choke, I refuted that bit of nonsense instantly. Nice try, however.

HAHAH. interesting, i suggest you read this thread's OP again.

you've been trolled, Pal. Hey Buddy, welcome to the forum, Friend.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

You're so logical, it's annoying And I mean that as a compliment.

Thank you (I try to live up to my name).

You are too, for the most part.

I notice, though, that you sometimes (I assume deliberately) place well-disguised traps that "twist" logic in order to trip up your opponent, and I must admit, it required plenty of checking on my part in order to avoid them this time. Fun though!

Gone are the days of easy, uninspired trollings by N S K and company. This may very well be the Golden Era ® of talk-tennis.

 

[britam25]

HAHAH. interesting, i suggest you read this thread's OP again.

you've been trolled, Pal. Hey Buddy, welcome to the forum, Friend.

Thanks for the welcome and warning, "Golden Age" huh?

 

[SpicyCurry1990]

I disagree with much of the above - some of your analysis of "big titles", your weightings, Mayo's weightings, etc. Of course, this is just a difference in opinion, and I don't have the energy to contest each bit of your post.

But do you genuinely think Laver et al. are "way" ahead of Federer?
If so, fine, that's your opinion, but I strongly disagree.
Just from a simplistic view, they all seem to have between 20-25 big titles (Majors, WTF and equivalent; ignoring masters and below). This isn't a thorough analyisis, of course, but I think it is a good heuristic to say that Laver et al. and Federer are certainly "close" in achievements (who is better becomes much more complicated and down to opinion).

I do, to me I find it very difficult to make any argument for Federer being GOAT. If you value most majors plus greatest longevity, its Rosewall. If you value most years as the best in the world, its Gonzales. If you value the best mix of YE #1s, majors, and over-all titles, plus dominating all rivals and having no holes on the resume in terms of big missing titles, its Laver. Thats in addition to the weighted analysis I conducted prior in regards to Laver vs Federer, which if you disagree with is w/e.

I have posted my lists elsewhere but if you are interested:

Pre-Open Era
GOAT Tier
1-Laver
2-Gonzales
3-Rosewall
Tier 1
4-Tilden
5-Budge
6-Vines
7-Kramer
Tier 2
8-Perry
9-Cochet
10-Lacoste
11-Hoad
Tier 3
12-Segura
13-Riggs
14-Sedgman
Tier 4
15-Borotra
16-Crawford
17-Johnston
18-Nusslein
19-Von Cramm
20-Gimeno
Tier 5
21-Emerson
22-Trabert
23-Fraser
24-Santana
25-Kozeluh
26-Kovacs

Open Era
Tier 1
1-Federer
2-Sampras
3-Nadal
4-Borg
Tier 2
5-Lendl
6-Connors
7-McEnroe
8-Agassi
9-Djokovic
Tier 3
10-Becker
11-Wilander
12-Edberg
13-Newcombe
14-Nastase
Tier 4
15-Vilas
16-Courier
17-Ashe
18-Kuerten
19-Murray
20-Hewitt
21-Smith
Tier 5
22-Roddick
23-Safin
24-Rafter
25-Kafelnikov
26-Brugera
27-Kodes
28-Ivanisevic
29-Kriek

Spicy is trolling. He has already admitted Federer is the GOAT. Here is evidence:

More of Mayo's "logic twisting" which you seem to be well aware of. I figured stating Laver was GOAT in numerous topics and also stating Federer was open era GOAT in numerous topics was enough for me to refer to Fed as simply GOAT and imply open era GOAT in a topic dealing only with open era players.

 

[Mayonnaise]

Gone are the days of easy, uninspired trollings by N S K and company. This may very well be the Golden Era ® of talk-tennis.

Yes, with you around

 

[Mayonnaise]

More of Mayo's "logic twisting" which you seem to be well aware of. I figured stating Laver was GOAT in numerous topics and also stating Federer was open era GOAT in numerous topics was enough for me to refer to Fed as simply GOAT and imply open era GOAT in a topic dealing only with open era players.

GOAT = Greatest Of All Time :lol:

No matter how much you troll now, you admitted Federer is the GOAT

Now, stop trolling, and admit it

 

[THE FIGHTER]

Yes, with you around

i'll take that as a compliment, naturally