Djokodal would have conquered the “weak era” even more than Fed did, and ended up with better stats than his by 2008

[jl809]

People complain (although less often recently since he ended up 3rd in slam race) about Federer vulturing slams in a weak era from 2003-2007.

However I am here to tell you that he undervultured. He did not inflate himself enough ( ) for a supposed ATG from 2000-2007.

How can this be true?

Federer born 1981 IRL: 12 slams, 14 M1000s, 205 weeks at number 1 (lol), 4 YECs, etc

But Nadal born in 1981 in lieu of Federer?

• Slam by slam:
  • AO: 2009 Nadal wins 2004 AO with Fed’s draw. 2012dal is lock for 07 AO. So 2 Aussie Opens.
  • RG: 00-03 RG is a lock. 2010dal has to face 05dal but beats him. 2012dal ~ 2007dal. So 5 or 6 RGs.
  • Wim: 06 + 07dal would struggle to win finals on fast grass in 01/02 (although Hewitt won Wim 02??). But 08, 10 and 11dal would be happy once stuff slows down, esp. 2010dal in 2004 and 2011dal in 2005. So 2 Wimbs, maybe 3
  • USO: Peak 2010dal wins USO 05, USO 06 is a lock. So 2 USOs.
• Overall: range of 11-13 slams compared to Fed's 12 IRL, but also has the CGS and probably the DCGS
• Candidate to win YEC in 2001 (2006dal was stopped by Feddy IRL in super high qual match) and 2005 (no 2010 Fed any more)
• Absolute carnage at clay M1000s along with early HC success at IW/Miami/Canada for youngdal = bumper M1000 haul
• Plus, with freakishly early development on grass + his crazy 2005 HC season (i.e. year 2000) and being basically a guaranteed RG winner, he would have had a shot at YE number #1 in 2000 for sure, 2001 (Hewitt didn’t even win a M1000 that year), 2002 (this time Hewitt won 1) and 2003 (GOAT year)
  … at which point Peak Ned gets good at HC slams too - so continues to tie up YE #1 through 04-07. We're talking 250-300+ weeks at number 1 by the end of 2007

Now what of Djoker being born in 81?

• Slam by slam:
  • AO: 2002 AO is a lock, 2005 AO is very possible, 2006, 2007 AO guaranteed - so 4 AOs, possibly 5
  • RG: 2008 Djoker wins 2002, 2011 Djoker possibly beats 05dal. That’s it - 2 RGs
  • 2011 Djoker wins Wimbledon 05 for sure. Not sure if 2012 Djoker wins vs Youngdal in 06, I might give Djoker that too - 1 Wim, maybe 2
  • USO: 2011 Djoker wins 2005 USO, 2012 Djoker wins 2006 USO (no wind), 2013 Djoker beats 2007 Djoker imo (no Stan semi final). Maybe let’s say 2 wins here
• Overall: range of 7 - 11 slams. Maybe 9 then, so a bit short of Fed. But he has the career slam, and possibly the calendar year slam in 05 / 06
• Deep runs at 2002 USO to go with RG win + strong M1000s form = year end number 1, which he keeps through 2003 thanks to strong clay + deep USO run... a bit of a fall off in 04, but prime Djoker gets back on the wagon from 2005-2007 - so 200 weeks at number 1
• Also could well pick up a M1000 sweep (winning every one at least once) with his clay from pre 2005. Certainly wins more than Fraud!
• ATP finals: wins in 2002, 2006, 2007 - so not as many as Fed
• (also 2014ovic probably wins 2008 OSG but that's outside of scope)

Essentially Fred’s m u g g e r y as a wee lad means that really he should be thankful for Roland Garros 2009 being born EARLIER rather than later. And his so called highest peak of all time doesn't even feature a career grand slam???

DJOKODAL WERE BORN IN THE WRONG ERA CONFIRMED

 

[Neptune]

For whoever stuck in coping with grief, you know well, lol. @jl809

 

[jl809]

Who is this addressed to? This is a pro-Djokovic post of mine. I’m literally seriously saying he is better and more versatile preprime + prime combined than Fed

I do wonder about the literacy of the Djoker fan base

 

[RS]

Uysk and Fury would have been smashed in the 1970s.

 

[RS]

People complain (although less often recently since he ended up 3rd in slam race) about Federer vulturing slams in a weak era from 2003-2007.

However I am here to tell you that he undervultured. He did not inflate himself enough ( ) for a supposed ATG from 2000-2007.

How can this be true?

Federer born 1981 IRL: 12 slams, 14 M1000s, 205 weeks at number 1 (lol), 4 YECs, etc

But Nadal born in 1981 in lieu of Federer?

• Slam by slam:
  • AO: 2009 Nadal wins 2004 AO with Fed’s draw. 2012dal is lock for 07 AO. So 2 Aussie Opens.
  • RG: 00-03 RG is a lock. 2010dal has to face 05dal but beats him. 2012dal ~ 2007dal. So 5 or 6 RGs.
  • Wim: 06 + 07dal would struggle to win finals on fast grass in 01/02 (although Hewitt won Wim 02??). But 08, 10 and 11dal would be happy once stuff slows down, esp. 2010dal in 2004 and 2011dal in 2005. So 2 Wimbs, maybe 3
  • USO: Peak 2010dal wins USO 05, USO 06 is a lock. So 2 USOs.
• Overall: range of 11-13 slams compared to Fed's 12 IRL, but also has the CGS and probably the DCGS
• Candidate to win YEC in 2001 (2006dal was stopped by Feddy IRL in super high qual match) and 2005 (no 2010 Fed any more)
• Absolute carnage at clay M1000s along with early HC success at IW/Miami/Canada for youngdal = bumper M1000 haul
• Plus, with freakishly early development on grass + his crazy 2005 HC season (i.e. year 2000) and being basically a guaranteed RG winner, he would have had a shot at YE number #1 in 2000 for sure, 2001 (Hewitt didn’t even win a M1000 that year), 2002 (this time Hewitt won 1) and 2003 (GOAT year)
  … at which point Peak Ned gets good at HC slams too - so continues to tie up YE #1 through 04-07. We're talking 250-300+ weeks at number 1 by the end of 2007

Now what of Djoker being born in 81?

• Slam by slam:
  • AO: 2002 AO is a lock, 2005 AO is very possible, 2006, 2007 AO guaranteed - so 4 AOs, possibly 5
  • RG: 2008 Djoker wins 2002, 2011 Djoker possibly beats 05dal. That’s it - 2 RGs
  • 2011 Djoker wins Wimbledon 05 for sure. Not sure if 2012 Djoker wins vs Youngdal in 06, I might give Djoker that too - 1 Wim, maybe 2
  • USO: 2011 Djoker wins 2005 USO, 2012 Djoker wins 2006 USO (no wind), 2013 Djoker beats 2007 Djoker imo (no Stan semi final). Maybe let’s say 2 wins here
• Overall: range of 7 - 11 slams. Maybe 9 then, so a bit short of Fed. But he has the CGS.
• Deep runs at 2002 USO to go with RG win + strong M1000s form = year end number 1, which he keeps through 2003 thanks to strong clay + deep USO run... a bit of a fall off in 04, but prime Djoker gets back on the wagon from 2005-2007 - so 200 weeks at number 1
• Also could well pick up a M1000 sweep (winning every one at least once) with his clay from pre 2005. Certainly wins more than Fraud!
• ATP finals: wins in 2002, 2006, 2007 - so not as many as Fed
• (also 2014ovic probably wins 2008 OSG but that's outside of scope)

Essentially Fred’s m u g g e r y as a wee lad means that really he should be thankful for Roland Garros 2009 being born EARLIER rather than later. And his so called highest peak of all time doesn't even feature a career grand slam???

DJOKODAL WERE BORN IN THE WRONG ERA CONFIRMED

Good job.

 

[jl809]

Uysk and Fury would have been smashed in the 1970s.

Controversially I think boxing has got worse since the evolvement of elite movement. There are so few times when people actually hit each other properly anymore, it’s all jabs and stuff. You look at the 70s fights and it’s much more like watching Rocky… having said that my better self knows that’s what led to prevalent dementia etc, so yeah

This is why those Wilder-Fury fights were so much fun where you knew Wilder was going to either lay him out or just get flattened himself

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Funny one but that's hardly true. Both djokodal start winning earlier but don't reach the consistent heights of peak Fred besides Claydal. Same slam ballpark at best with fewer YEC. More masters though, as in real timeline. Also Ned gets a big no.1 boost and Djoe gets a bit too, that's right.

 

[nolefam_2024]

All this thread proves is that you can't hack your way to top in just 4 years anymore..

It takes decade plus of playing top level player and Federer fand should be thankful for the years he stayed on top post 2007 or his haul would be easily crossed by someone like sinner in 2024 to 2030 or something.

Federer fans take the bitter pill of slam losses just like the wins that happened in vaccum era. We all know what happened post ao 2010. It was total shut out for 28 slams. That's what strong competition did to fed.

 

[Third Serve]

For whoever stuck in coping with grief, you know well, lol. @jl809

You got clowned in a thread that reaffirms your view, big LOL.

 

[Garro]

Scenario for Nadal is way off.

The old surface at the Australian Open would be less suitable for his game. Gonzalez in 07 absolutely wiped the floor with him.
Does 2012 Nadal win that match? Maybe, but I don't see him winning AO in both 04 and 07.

Same at Wimbledon. Nadal faced a match point in making the final in 06. Can you imagine that Nadal making the final in 2001? LOL
Nadal struggles to gain confidence on grass before facing Hewitt and/or Roddick in 2004 and 2005. Best case scenario he breaks even with 2 Wimbledons.

Nadal wouldn't be winning so much on hard courts in 2000 like he did in 2005...Agassi almost beat him when he was 35, 5 years younger Agassi would take him down.
He would have to go through Agassi, Sampras, and Safin to win some of the masters that year...

On clay? Okay probably not that much different
There is a chance Kuerten blocks him from winning his first Roland Garros in 2000, but my money is on Nadal for that match.

 

[Razer]

Djokovic would have less than 20 slams if he is born in 1981 and Fed is born in 1987.

Federer being older is more of a blessing to Novak and a curse to Federer....but if reversed then it becomes bad for Novak and great for Federer.

Reg Nadal, Novak born in 81 can still tackle Nadal but Fed born in 87 fares better vs Nadal too.

So the main problem for Novak now would be Federer and not Nadal.

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Fed can't even lay claim to his weak era anymore. Djodal so much better than Fed that they would be have been even better weak era champions, too.

I am thankful that this thread has birthed the word 'undervultured'.

 

[Razer]

Nadal and Novak born in 1981 and Federer born in 1987 means Federer reduces both Nadal and Djokovic to his personal lapdog status....they both will end with some 16-17 or maybe even lesser type number and Federer would win like 25+

 

[Born_to_slice]

Djokovic would have less than 20 slams if he is born in 1981 and Fed is born in 1987.

Federer being older is more of a blessing to Novak and a curse to Federer....but if reversed then it becomes bad for Novak and great for Federer.

Reg Nadal, Novak born in 81 can still tackle Nadal but Fed born in 87 fares better vs Nadal too.

Nonsensical assertions. You can basically write whatever you want. Zero insight, zero chance to prove or disprove any of it.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Probably not, Djokovic had a mental slump during his peak physical/technical years and was not able to properly peak at slams at one point in 2013/2014 although he was dominating Bo3.

But who knows, he could have not gotten that slump if he did not have some of those losses. That's why those hypotheticals of putting this player here and that there are pretty meaningless. Would Djokovic had gone in a slump in 2009 and 2010 with no Fedal around?

 

[Razer]

Nonsensical assertions. You can basically write whatever you want. Zero insight, zero chance to prove or disprove any of it.

The fact that we cannot prove this works in Novak's favor far more than Fed's I assure you.

Federer is a superior man with better racquet talent than Nadal/Novak. He would have been impossible to crack for Djokovic if the age difference is swapped

2019 Wimbledon proved it... Federer came so close to a win at close to 38....his level has always been higher than Djokovic's or Nadal's outside of Djokodal's respective pet slams.

 

[Born_to_slice]

The fact that we cannot prove this works in Novak's favor far more than Fed's I assure you.

Federer is a superior man with better racquet talent than Nadal/Novak. He would have been impossible to crack for Djokovic if the age difference is swapped

2019 Wimbledon proved it... Federer came so close to a win at close to 38....his level has always been higher than Djokovic's or Nadal's outside of Djokodal's respective pet slams.

All temporal speculations are complete gibberish, not worth the paper or internet space they occupy. And it ALL comes from butthurt fanboys exclusively. Come on people. Get a life.

 

[Razer]

All temporal speculations are complete gibberish, not worth the paper or internet space they occupy. And it ALL comes from butthurt fanboys exclusively. Come on people. Get a life.

Butthurt ?

Why will my butt hurt even if Federer ended up behind Djokovic ? Djokovic doesnt give a sh*t about you or his other fans ...and Federer doesn't give a sh*t about me or anyone... It is you who needs to get this in your head that people are allowed to have the view that Novak is inferior to Federer hypothetically in diffrent scenarios even if Novak is above Federer in numbers. I would instead recommend you to get a life instead of forcing your opinion on others.

 

[kevin qmto]

These ‘what if’ threads get sadder and more pathetic every day.

Like, who’s to say Djoker or Nadal wouldn’t suffer some career ending/altering injury that means they won basically no slams at all. It’s all hypothetical. Courts were different, carpet was still in use in a half dozen places. Late 90s big servers could’ve altered how they played. It’s all just meaningless crap.

 

[Born_to_slice]

Butthurt ?

Why will my butt hurt even if Federer ended up behind Djokovic ? Do you think Djokovic doesnt give a sh*t about you or his other fans ...and Federer doesn't give a sh*t about me or anyone ?? It is you who needs to get this in your head that people are allowed to have the view that Novak is inferior to Federer hypothetically in diffrent scenarios even if Novak is above Federer in numbers. I would instead recommend you to get a life instead of forcing your opinion on others.

Oh, you're allowed to have any view (some fancy themselves Napoleon etc.). But the reality is definite. One doesn't have a third serve, ball goes exactly where you put it in that one chance you get and not one millimeter differently. All hypothetical speculation is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[big ted]

its amazing how the OP can get a players career stats after changing their birth year LOL

 

[Lauren_Girl']

These ‘what if’ threads get sadder and more pathetic every day.

Like, who’s to say Djoker or Nadal wouldn’t suffer some career ending/altering injury that means they won basically no slams at all. It’s all hypothetical. Courts were different, carpet was still in use in a half dozen places. Late 90s big servers could’ve altered how they played. It’s all just meaningless crap.

Lol Sadly this is all Fedal fans have since Djokovic broke the Slam record. Before RG 2023, they wouldn't even argue it. 22>x or 20>y was all that matters, even if Djokovic was ahead in most other statistics. As long as he was behind in the Slam race, they didn't need other arguments. The player with the most slams is the Goat, period.

Now that they don't even have this, they have to change the narrative and come up with something else. WHAT IF, hypothetical matches, hypothetical tournaments, hypothetical events, hypothetical date birth, hypothetical weak era,... What if Djokovic was born with 1 arm and 1 leg? What if a fan stabbed him in the middle of a match? What if they forced him to play with a wooden racket? How many Slams would he have? Pathetic is an understatement.

 

[GloW]

of course he would have because he is the GOAT!

 

[Ray Mercer]

Controversially I think boxing has got worse since the evolvement of elite movement. There are so few times when people actually hit each other properly anymore, it’s all jabs and stuff. You look at the 70s fights and it’s much more like watching Rocky… having said that my better self knows that’s what led to prevalent dementia etc, so yeah

This is why those Wilder-Fury fights were so much fun where you knew Wilder was going to either lay him out or just get flattened himself

Boxing has absolutely declined in skill and athleticism. Guys used to train hard and prepare for 15 rounds, spar like crazy and fight more than once a year. Fighters from the 70’s would destroy current boxers.

 

[jackson vile]

If we’re all being fair here and properly defining “vulturing” Federer vultured the beginning of his career, Nadal vultured FO, and then little old washed up man Novak “vultred” the amazing Alcaraz, Sinner, and his peers Murray, Nadal, etc

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

Lol Sadly this is all Fedal fans have since Djokovic broke the Slam record. Before RG 2023, they wouldn't even argue it. 22>x or 20>y was all that matters, even if Djokovic was ahead in most other statistics. As long as he was behind in the Slam race, they didn't need other arguments. The player with the most slams is the Goat, period.

Now that they don't even have this, they have to change the narrative and come up with something else. WHAT IF, hypothetical matches, hypothetical tournaments, hypothetical events, hypothetical date birth, hypothetical weak era,... What if Djokovic was born with 1 arm and 1 leg? What if a fan stabbed him in the middle of a match? What if they forced him to play with a wooden racket? How many Slams would he have? Pathetic is an understatement.

What if Sinner was born around the same time period as the Big Three? Answer: Sinner with 32+ Slams, the Big Three with less than 15 Slams combined.
Hence, Sinner the undisputed GOAT!!

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

If we’re all being fair here and properly defining “vulturing” Federer vultured the beginning of his career, Nadal vultured FO, and then little old washed up man Novak “vultred” the amazing Alcaraz, Sinner, and his peers Murray, Nadal, etc

That's the thing. Because Sinner never vultured any title. He rightfully destroyed peak Djokovic and peak Medvedev back to back to win his AO title.

 

[messiahrobins]

Uysk and Fury would have been smashed in the 1970s.

Usyk definitely. Fury is a legend (past his best now) and would have beat Foreman i feel but Ali would have been too quick for him

 

[messiahrobins]

Lol Sadly this is all Fedal fans have since Djokovic broke the Slam record. Before RG 2023, they wouldn't even argue it. 22>x or 20>y was all that matters, even if Djokovic was ahead in most other statistics. As long as he was behind in the Slam race, they didn't need other arguments. The player with the most slams is the Goat, period.

Now that they don't even have this, they have to change the narrative and come up with something else. WHAT IF, hypothetical matches, hypothetical tournaments, hypothetical events, hypothetical date birth, hypothetical weak era,... What if Djokovic was born with 1 arm and 1 leg? What if a fan stabbed him in the middle of a match? What if they forced him to play with a wooden racket? How many Slams would he have? Pathetic is an understatement.

It was Djokovic fans who never accepted the slam leader as GOAT lol. You are calling your own fanbase pathetic. From 2011 Djokovic fans were ad nauseum saying Novak was greater than Fedal, and when Nadal got the upper hand from 2012 onwards at the slams the conspiracy theories started. Nadal's USO's were dismissed as weak field vulturing (despite him beating Djokovic in 2 out of 3 finals). AO 2022 was asterisked etc. Federer pre 2010 benefitted from a weak field etc.
What goes around comes around. It is in fact your own fan base's arguments over the years that have now prevented Djokovic being considered the GOAT by many tennis fans. All of the above arguments Djokovic fans made apply to all Novak's slams from 2021 onwards.
I have said it many times as i genuinely feel sorry for Novak, but a significant minority of his own fans (you know the ones on X no doubt) are, and have been his own worst enemy.

 

[RS]

Usyk definitely. Fury is a legend (past his best now) and would have beat Foreman i feel but Ali would have been too quick for him

Interesting take. You are possibly in the camp Fury would have whooped Uysk if it was the Fury of years ago.

 

[messiahrobins]

Interesting take. You are possibly in the camp Fury would have whooped Uysk if it was the Fury of years ago.

No, not whooped as i really rate Usyk, but peak Fury was fitter and had quicker hand speed so i think he would win on unanimous points decision.
Fury visibily wilted after round 7, which i knew would happen (i have followed Fury for years way before he was even heard about). I fear he may lose the rematch as well as he just doesnt have the hand speed he once did. That 5% drop off at the elite level in boxing with hand speed makes so much of a difference.
Uysk i have enormous respect for, but he is a cruiserweight fighting at a heavier weight division and against the very best heavyweights in their primes that weight difference would be too big a gap for him to overcome.
I thought Fury actually won the fight personally by a round but the knock down means nobody can argue with the result really.
Hope the rematch is in Vegas or Madison Square Gardens as i am going if so for sure.

 

[Megafanoftennis100]

of course he would have because he is the GOAT!

Exactly! Thank you! Finally someone who is able to acknowledge and appreciate the rightful GOAT of tennis, Jannik Sinner!

 

[SonnyT]

No, not whooped as i really rate Usyk, but peak Fury was fitter and had quicker hand speed so i think he would win on unanimous points decision.
Fury visibily wilted after round 7, which i knew would happen (i have followed Fury for years way before he was even heard about). I fear he may lose the rematch as well as he just doesnt have the hand speed he once did. That 5% drop off at the elite level in boxing with hand speed makes so much of a difference.
Uysk i have enormous respect for, but he is a cruiserweight fighting at a heavier weight division and against the very best heavyweights in their primes that weight difference would be too big a gap for him to overcome.
I thought Fury actually won the fight personally by a round but the knock down means nobody can argue with the result really.
Hope the rematch is in Vegas or Madison Square Gardens as i am going if so for sure.

What are you complaining about? You're complaining too much, and posting much, too much.

60% of TTW netizens vote for Djokovic as the best of Big3, 20% for Federer and 10% for Nadal. Case closed, finally we've the verdict!

 

[Gary Duane]

All temporal speculations are complete gibberish, not worth the paper or internet space they occupy. And it ALL comes from butthurt fanboys exclusively. Come on people. Get a life.

I could not agree more. I just want to add that the idea that people can be rabid followers of a particular player, and also objective about other players, is completely ridiculous.

I have favorite players but my focus has always been on tennis itself rather than who is currently dominating. That has kept me passionate about the sport for decades.

 

[messiahrobins]

What are you complaining about? You're complaining too much, and posting much, too much.

60% of TTW netizens vote for Djokovic as the best of Big3, 20% for Federer and 10% for Nadal. Case closed, finally we've the verdict!

I am struggling to see the connection with Fury v Uysk which is what you replied to or are you suggesting Federer Nadal and Djokovic were the judges or something?

 

[Gary Duane]

22>x or 20>y was all that matters, even if Djokovic was ahead in most other statistics.

I've been arguing for Djokovic as being as good as the other Big Three for a decade. That was long before he surpassed the others in number of slams.

The problem is that for the current batch of Djokovic fans, who are now posting nonstop, nothing is good enough except bowing down to Djokovic as the greatest human being that was ever born on planet Earth. In spite of you guys who annoy me to no end, I'm pulling for him to win Roland Garros unless a miracle happens and Nadal is resurrected.

 

[messiahrobins]

I've been arguing for Djokovic as being as good as the other Big Three for a decade. That was long before he surpassed the others in number of slams.

The problem is that for the current batch of Djokovic fans ,who are now posting nonstop, nothing is good enough except bowing down to Djokovic as the greatest human being that was ever born on planet Earth. In spite of you guys who annoy me to no end, I'm pulling for him to win Roland Garros unless a miracle happens and Nadal is resurrected.

In fairness, some context is needed regarding social media comments. Novak has by far the youngest fanbase of the Big 3, which you can easily see from posting style etc. The peak of Federer was almost 20 years ago now, so younger people under 35 are not really going to remember how great Federer was. It is over 10 years since we saw peak Nadal as well so most people under 35 are not going to remember the performances of Nadal 2007-2010, undoubtedly his best years performance wise. So, i can see why Novak fans post so much demanding people bow down as it is a generational thing and how the TIk Tok generation is these days generally in all walks of life, Taylor Swift fans are almost identical how they behave.
I entirely agree with you, in fact not only did i have Djokovic on a par with Fedal, but also Murray and Del Potro as well at their best. Del Potro was sadly robbed of an ATG due to his wrists and Murray due to his hip albeit Murray is an ATG anyway, but slam number wise i am in no doubt he and Del Potro had they not had such terrible injuries would have had at least 6 Majors each.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Usyk definitely. Fury is a legend (past his best now) and would have beat Foreman i feel but Ali would have been too quick for him

Lennox Lewis would have mopped the floor with Fury.

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Lennox Lewis would have mopped the floor with Fury.

As he did with Ray Mercer, Vitali Klitschko, Rahman I, and Oliver McCall I. He also floored Evander Holyfield several times in both encounters. Holyfield started out as a light heavyweight. FACETIOUS. I think Lewis >Fury but not convinced it ends in a stoppage.

 

[Razer]

Oh, you're allowed to have any view (some fancy themselves Napoleon etc.). But the reality is definite. One doesn't have a third serve, ball goes exactly where you put it in that one chance you get and not one millimeter differently. All hypothetical speculation is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Djokovic's achievements are his own, not yours, so calm down and talk about your own achievements in life if any rather than fight for Djokovic's. You guys seem too agitated while defending Djokovic, maybe it is time you stopped worrying about who is involved in wishful thinking or hypothetical speculation.

 

[Gary Duane]

The peak of Federer was almost 20 years ago now, so younger people under 35 are not really going to remember how great Federer was.

Extreme recency bias comes directly from a lack of respect for history. I was never like that even when I was young.

I suppose that many young people have not yet seen enough declines to understand how the aging process works. For me the player that had the most spectacular career in his 30s in the open era was Ken Rosewall. What he did in his late 30s remained the gold standard for me concerning what a player can do with excellent genetics and training. I remember when he got crushed at Wimbledon by Jimmy Connors. Very few people at the time thought about what that same Ken Rosewall could have done if he were more than 10 years younger.

So I see Ken Rosewall as the gold standard. However, Pancho Gonzalez was more than six years older, and if you take a look what he did in the opening era while smoking cigarettes and using soda with caffeine and sugar during breaks, you have to wonder what kind of open era monster he would have been if he had been born much later.

Fast forward to today. What Djokovic has done the last few years should be incredible to any open-minded person. He has reset the standard we have for training and diet. So I am in no way under-estimating what he has done. But I think we have to judge each player by the dominance he showed at his peak. I don't think his peak is more impressive than Federer's. I don't think it is less impressive. And I think at the beginning of his career he had to become competitive with two already established all time greats. But I do think he has been very lucky in facing comparatively weaker competition for the last few years.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Extreme recency bias comes directly from a lack of respect for history. I was never like that even when I was young.

I suppose that many young people have not yet seen enough declines to understand how the aging process works. For me the player that had the most spectacular career in his 30s in the open era was Ken Rosewall. What he did in his late 30s remained the gold standard for me concerning what a player can do with excellent genetics and training. I remember when he got crushed at Wimbledon by Jimmy Connors. Very few people at the time thought about what that same Ken Rosewall could have done if he were more than 10 years younger.

So I see Ken Rosewall as the gold standard. However, Pancho Gonzalez was more than six years older, and if you take a look what he did in the opening era while smoking cigarettes and using soda with caffeine and sugar during breaks, you have to wonder what kind of open era monster he would have been if he had been born much later.

Fast forward to today. What Djokovic has done the last few years should be incredible to any open-minded person. He has reset the standard we have for training and diet. So I am in no way under-estimating what he has done. But I think we have to judge each player by the dominance he showed at his peak. I don't think his peak is more impressive than Federer's. I don't think it is less impressive. And I think at the beginning of his career he had to become competitive with two already established all time greats. But I do think he has been very lucky in facing comparatively weaker competition for the last few years.

Nothing to see here, just Gary being epic

 

[aldeayeah]

o god, deliver us from the hypothetical goats

 

[RS]

People complain (although less often recently since he ended up 3rd in slam race) about Federer vulturing slams in a weak era from 2003-2007.

However I am here to tell you that he undervultured. He did not inflate himself enough ( ) for a supposed ATG from 2000-2007.

How can this be true?

Federer born 1981 IRL: 12 slams, 14 M1000s, 205 weeks at number 1 (lol), 4 YECs, etc

But Nadal born in 1981 in lieu of Federer?

• Slam by slam:
  • AO: 2009 Nadal wins 2004 AO with Fed’s draw. 2012dal is lock for 07 AO. So 2 Aussie Opens.
  • RG: 00-03 RG is a lock. 2010dal has to face 05dal but beats him. 2012dal ~ 2007dal. So 5 or 6 RGs.
  • Wim: 06 + 07dal would struggle to win finals on fast grass in 01/02 (although Hewitt won Wim 02??). But 08, 10 and 11dal would be happy once stuff slows down, esp. 2010dal in 2004 and 2011dal in 2005. So 2 Wimbs, maybe 3
  • USO: Peak 2010dal wins USO 05, USO 06 is a lock. So 2 USOs.
• Overall: range of 11-13 slams compared to Fed's 12 IRL, but also has the CGS and probably the DCGS
• Candidate to win YEC in 2001 (2006dal was stopped by Feddy IRL in super high qual match) and 2005 (no 2010 Fed any more)
• Absolute carnage at clay M1000s along with early HC success at IW/Miami/Canada for youngdal = bumper M1000 haul
• Plus, with freakishly early development on grass + his crazy 2005 HC season (i.e. year 2000) and being basically a guaranteed RG winner, he would have had a shot at YE number #1 in 2000 for sure, 2001 (Hewitt didn’t even win a M1000 that year), 2002 (this time Hewitt won 1) and 2003 (GOAT year)
  … at which point Peak Ned gets good at HC slams too - so continues to tie up YE #1 through 04-07. We're talking 250-300+ weeks at number 1 by the end of 2007

Now what of Djoker being born in 81?

• Slam by slam:
  • AO: 2002 AO is a lock, 2005 AO is very possible, 2006, 2007 AO guaranteed - so 4 AOs, possibly 5
  • RG: 2008 Djoker wins 2002, 2011 Djoker possibly beats 05dal. That’s it - 2 RGs
  • 2011 Djoker wins Wimbledon 05 for sure. Not sure if 2012 Djoker wins vs Youngdal in 06, I might give Djoker that too - 1 Wim, maybe 2
  • USO: 2011 Djoker wins 2005 USO, 2012 Djoker wins 2006 USO (no wind), 2013 Djoker beats 2007 Djoker imo (no Stan semi final). Maybe let’s say 2 wins here
• Overall: range of 7 - 11 slams. Maybe 9 then, so a bit short of Fed. But he has the career slam, and possibly the calendar year slam in 05 / 06
• Deep runs at 2002 USO to go with RG win + strong M1000s form = year end number 1, which he keeps through 2003 thanks to strong clay + deep USO run... a bit of a fall off in 04, but prime Djoker gets back on the wagon from 2005-2007 - so 200 weeks at number 1
• Also could well pick up a M1000 sweep (winning every one at least once) with his clay from pre 2005. Certainly wins more than Fraud!
• ATP finals: wins in 2002, 2006, 2007 - so not as many as Fed
• (also 2014ovic probably wins 2008 OSG but that's outside of scope)

Essentially Fred’s m u g g e r y as a wee lad means that really he should be thankful for Roland Garros 2009 being born EARLIER rather than later. And his so called highest peak of all time doesn't even feature a career grand slam???

DJOKODAL WERE BORN IN THE WRONG ERA CONFIRMED

How do you see it carrying on after 2007?

 

[RS]

As he did with Ray Mercer, Vitali Klitschko, Rahman I, and Oliver McCall I. He also floored Evander Holyfield several times in both encounters. Holyfield started out as a light heavyweight. FACETIOUS. I think Lewis >Fury but not convinced it ends in a stoppage.

Lewis didn't floor Holyfield.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

"And his so called highest peak of all time doesn't even feature a career grand slam???"

Peak Claydal gonna peak Claydal.

 

[GoatNo1]

strength of competition

 

[AgassiSuperSlam11]

Lewis didn't floor Holyfield.

I put the word "Facetious" in bold letters to signal the post was "sarcastic." Some thought he lost to Mercer and was losing to Vitali before the eye stoppage. He was knocked out in both Rahman 1 and McCall 1. I even mention that Holyfield started out as a LHW to contrast the fact that in 24 rounds he was never dropped once by Lewis who is more a natural Super Heavyweight. Black Comedy and satire as "Dr. Strangelove" not popular on TTW.

 

[RS]

I put the word "Facetious" in bold letters to signal the post was "sarcastic." Some thought he lost to Mercer and was losing to Vitali before the eye stoppage. He was knocked out in both Rahman 1 and McCall 1. I even mention that Holyfield started out as a LHW to contrast the fact that in 24 rounds he was never dropped once by Lewis who is more a natural Super Heavyweight. Black Comedy and satire as "Dr. Strangelove" not popular on TTW.

Sorry for misunderstanding. I thought that was just the ending

 

[messiahrobins]

Extreme recency bias comes directly from a lack of respect for history. I was never like that even when I was young.

I suppose that many young people have not yet seen enough declines to understand how the aging process works. For me the player that had the most spectacular career in his 30s in the open era was Ken Rosewall. What he did in his late 30s remained the gold standard for me concerning what a player can do with excellent genetics and training. I remember when he got crushed at Wimbledon by Jimmy Connors. Very few people at the time thought about what that same Ken Rosewall could have done if he were more than 10 years younger.

So I see Ken Rosewall as the gold standard. However, Pancho Gonzalez was more than six years older, and if you take a look what he did in the opening era while smoking cigarettes and using soda with caffeine and sugar during breaks, you have to wonder what kind of open era monster he would have been if he had been born much later.

Fast forward to today. What Djokovic has done the last few years should be incredible to any open-minded person. He has reset the standard we have for training and diet. So I am in no way under-estimating what he has done. But I think we have to judge each player by the dominance he showed at his peak. I don't think his peak is more impressive than Federer's. I don't think it is less impressive. And I think at the beginning of his career he had to become competitive with two already established all time greats. But I do think he has been very lucky in facing comparatively weaker competition for the last few years.

Agree with every word of that. And what i will say about Djokovic is he has revolutionised sport in terms of how to prolong a career at the highest level and he could/will make millions potentially if he writes a manual about it for people to study.
I keep using boxing as an example as i find it a close comparator to tennis in many ways, but Fury is a good example of what happens as you age if you do not look after yourself all the time as ultimately the training blocs to get back in tip top shape do catch up with athletes, and we saw on saturday how that has happened to Fury.