Djokodal would have conquered the “weak era” even more than Fed did, and ended up with better stats than his by 2008
- Thread starter jl809
- Start date
RS
Bionic Poster
I do think Fury is maybe a bit past his peak now and in particular doesn't quite the same speed but he was very good on Saturday Uysk was just better. But who is to say a younger Uysk couldn't do a bit better too so it was more of less all on a level playing field.
In the last year I don't think Fury has taken care of his body as well as he should have and he had a long break for 2 and a half years in what should have been his peak after beating Wlad so his best years are not easy to pin down.
In the last year I don't think Fury has taken care of his body as well as he should have and he had a long break for 2 and a half years in what should have been his peak after beating Wlad so his best years are not easy to pin down.
Last edited:
Born_to_slice
Legend
This is pro player talk, not a place to discuss our own achievements. And I will always call out this hypothetical nonsense because it's ridiculous, pretentious and disrespectful.
RS
Bionic Poster
I miss the days when they were more active. The division would be a lot more enjoyable if they fought more.
Garro
Rookie
The whole premise of this thread is kind of screwy.
Fed winning 11 slams in 2004-07 is absolutely bonkers. OP is basically saying Djokodal could have won a similar amount of slams in an 8 year period that Federer won in 4 years.
This is somehow supposed to be a dig at Fed, but it ends up being a backhanded compliment: even if we take OP's numbers at face value, neither Djokovic nor Nadal would have dominated Fed's era the way he did.
Fed winning 11 slams in 2004-07 is absolutely bonkers. OP is basically saying Djokodal could have won a similar amount of slams in an 8 year period that Federer won in 4 years.
This is somehow supposed to be a dig at Fed, but it ends up being a backhanded compliment: even if we take OP's numbers at face value, neither Djokovic nor Nadal would have dominated Fed's era the way he did.
Anti-Djokovic protagonists made it seem like Djokovic dominated the weakest era in tennis. Actually, he dominated the strongest era and field, with Federer, Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, JMdP and Cilic.
And his era of dominance was in the 10's. His 16th slam was the victory over Federer in '19 WB. His 17th slam was the '20 AO victory over Thiem; in that slam, Thiem beat Nadal in QF, and Djokovic triumphed over Federer in SF. In his first 17 slams, he beat one or two of the Fab Four with one exception, '18 US, in which he defeated JMdP. (17+1)/24=.75. The one in this decade was for '21 RG, in which he beat Nadal.
Contrast to Federer's record of defeating fellow Fab Four. If I'm correct, of his 20 slams, 3 were over Nadal, 5 over Djokovic, one over Murray and Safin each. Therefore, 10/20=.5. And I'm counting baby Djokovic & Murray.
Therefore, contrast Djokovic's tough ratio of .75 to Federer's .5
It's harder to compare with Nadal's 22, because most of Nadal's slams were at RG, where the match-ups on paper might be hard, for anyone but Nadal.
And his era of dominance was in the 10's. His 16th slam was the victory over Federer in '19 WB. His 17th slam was the '20 AO victory over Thiem; in that slam, Thiem beat Nadal in QF, and Djokovic triumphed over Federer in SF. In his first 17 slams, he beat one or two of the Fab Four with one exception, '18 US, in which he defeated JMdP. (17+1)/24=.75. The one in this decade was for '21 RG, in which he beat Nadal.
Contrast to Federer's record of defeating fellow Fab Four. If I'm correct, of his 20 slams, 3 were over Nadal, 5 over Djokovic, one over Murray and Safin each. Therefore, 10/20=.5. And I'm counting baby Djokovic & Murray.
Therefore, contrast Djokovic's tough ratio of .75 to Federer's .5
It's harder to compare with Nadal's 22, because most of Nadal's slams were at RG, where the match-ups on paper might be hard, for anyone but Nadal.
Last edited:
Tennfan123
Legend
Okay.
jl809
Legend
Mm but said “Fed’s era” isn’t 2004-2007, it’s 2000-2007. The only reason we talk about it as the former is because of just how bad he was pre-2004 - a period in which early bloomers Ned and Djoker would have been light years ahead of Feddy had they enjoyed such a muggy field to themselves in their young years
We always talk about Fed’s peak and Fed’s postprime etc. it’s time to give Youngdal and Youngovic the respect they deserve in the GOAT convos!!1111
abmk
Bionic Poster
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?
Essentially Fred’s m u g g e r y as a wee lad means that really he should be thankful for
- 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)
Roland Garros 2009being 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
if you are by any chance serious,
05/06 RG form nadal splits 00/01 RG with Kuerten
11 USO form nadal could lose to one of Roddick/Blake/Davy in USO 06 (can't trust him to get through 3 of them with USO 11 form)
so I'd estimate 10 slams for nadal
05 nadal still has edge vs 11 RG form djoko
and no chance djoko does calendar slam in 05 (safin and 05 RG nadal) ...ditto 06 with 12 RG form definitely loses to 06 RG nadal
maybe 8 slams for djoko
for non-slams,
2005 YEC: no fed ok, but nalby would whoop nadal and hewitt is better indoors than nadal
nolefam_2024
Bionic Poster
Nothing is scewy
Federer faced Roddick in 3 slam finals in this time. I take hold and break % combined > 115 as legit slam contender.
Andy Roddick didn't cross that in any of his season.
Federer faced Andre Agassi in 1 of these slams. Agassi was really geriatric at this time.
Baghdatis gonzalez in 2 finals.
If fed can win 11, Novak can do so as well in this field. Whatever fed can do Nole can match it.
duaneeo
Legend
I don't think born-in-1981 Nadal would win any USO titles or rebound ace AO titles from 2000-2007, and think he would win few HC Masters. Conditions were much different then, and he would've been vulnerable to a host of the HC big hitters.
And if a born-in-1987 Nole lost multiple slams to Wawrinka and Murray, one can imagine the many losses suffered had he been born in 1981. Nole also struggled with stamina issues, so it wouldn't have fared well for him with the WTFs and some Masters/500s/250s having BO5 finals.
And if a born-in-1987 Nole lost multiple slams to Wawrinka and Murray, one can imagine the many losses suffered had he been born in 1981. Nole also struggled with stamina issues, so it wouldn't have fared well for him with the WTFs and some Masters/500s/250s having BO5 finals.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Taking this comment as a serious argument then, I just don’t see that advantage from 2000-2003 compensating for Fed’s in 2004-2007 though.
Like at best Djokovic would probably win two or three Slams from 2000-2003 if you put him in Fed’s shoes. Hard court competition was still pretty good in those years with the exception of 2002 (which is the only year I would see young Djokovic winning Slams) and Djokovic hadn’t really found his groove on the natural surfaces at that 2006-2009 stage of his career.
Nadal would definitely benefit more due to his lockdown of RG, but he also loses more in the 2004-2007 period due to how up-and-down he was across his prime. For every 2010 or 2013 you have a 2009 or 2011 or 2012 where he didn’t really take complete advantage of his opportunities.
Really, I think both of their youth advantages would be more than canceled out by Fed’s remarkable 2004-2007 showings.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
A great relief that things were as they were.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 (
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?
Essentially Fred’s m u g g e r y as a wee lad means that really he should be thankful for
- 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)
Roland Garros 2009being 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
Backwards time predictions are the best.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
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.
What Djokovic has done with his body should be of interest at least to everyone. For all people who are aging it is even more important, if they would just pay attention.
I have a personal history that makes all of this super important. Until around the age of 65 I had suffered with weekly migraines that started in high school. I went to all sorts of doctors. I was on two drugs to keep it from going into nausea. And even with those two drugs it only numbed down the pain.
Then at the age of 65 I was trying to find an answer to rising blood pressure. It seemed like caffeine was causing spikes. So I decided to stop caffeine for a while. That resulted in a dull headache that lasted for about 10 days. Then when I got through that my headaches were gone and I was able to go off all medication.
To me that sounds very similar to Djokovic's gluten intolerance discovery. There are many reasons today why age 35 in some cases is now the new 30, 29, or even 28. I believe the reason you don't seem more athletes still performing fantastically at that age is that they are not yet doing enough with training and diet to fully utilize the possibilities.
I don't think Djokovic's peak was higher than Federer's or Nadal's. But in terms of the length of his career and the quality of the whole thing I think he is clearly the best of the Big Three. I think he deserves full credit for this. Aging people should be paying attention. That includes aging rec players who are in their 30s, 40s and 50s.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
For the record, I understood.
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Wasn’t Djokovic on tour since 2003?
objection_
Semi-Pro
Federer born in 1986 in lieu of RAFAPeople 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 (
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?
Essentially Fred’s m u g g e r y as a wee lad means that really he should be thankful for
- 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)
Roland Garros 2009being 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
2003 Fed in 2008: Wins Wim, YEC
2004 Fed in 2009: Wins AO, Wim, USO, YEC
2005 Fed in 2010: Wins AO, Wim, USO, good chance at RG, YEC
2006 Fed in 2011: Wins Wim, USO, YEC, good chance at RG
2007 Fed in 2012: Wins Wim, USO, YEC good chances at RG and AO
2008 Fed in 2013: Wins Wim, USO, slight chance at RG
2009 Fed in 2014: Wins AO, USO, high chances at RG and Wim
2010 Fed in 2015: Good chance at AO, YEC
2011 Fed in 2016: Wins Wim, USO, YEC, good chance at RG
2012 Fed in 2017: Wins Ao, Wim, YEC good chance at RG and USO
2013 Fed in 2018: Slight chance at AO
2014 Fed in 2019: High chance at Wim, decent chance at USO
2015 Fed in 2020: Likely wins Wim if played, wins USO, good chance at YEC
2016 Fed in 2021: Good chance at AO, Wim
2017 Fed in 2022: Wins AO, WIM, slight chance at YEC
2018 Fed in 2023: Good chance at AO
Total: 20+ slams minimum, 6 YECs, with favourable odds for many more
Federer born in 1987 in lieu of Djoko
2003 Fed in 2009: Wins Wim, YEC
2004 Fed in 2010: Wins AO, Wim, YEC, good chance at USO
2005 Fed in 2011: Wins Wim, very good chances at AO/USO/YEC
2006 Fed in 2012: Wins Wim, USO, YEC
2007 Fed in 2013: Wins Wim, USO, YEC, high chance at AO
2008 Fed in 2014: Wins USO, high chance at Wim, slight chance at AO
2009 Fed in 2015: High chances at all 4 slams
2010 Fed in 2016: Wins YEC, Good chance at USO
2011 Fed in 2017: Wins Wim, USO, YEC high chance at AO
2012 Fed in 2018: Wins AO, Wim, YEC
2013 Fed in 2019: Nothing
2014 Fed in 2020: Good chance at Wim if played, slight chance at USO
2015 Fed in 2021: Wins Wim, USO, YEC
2016 Fed in 2022: Wins AO, slight chance at Wim
2017 Fed in 2023: Wins Wim, good chance at AO
Total: 17+ Slams minimum, 8 YEC, good chances at many more
Regardless of era, all of them would still have GOAT careers if replaced with one another
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Yeah Fed would get to at least 24 with this weak era too. (2018-24 and counting)
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
No he got 12 slams with a decent field.
2012-2014 he only picked up 3 slams during a very strong period.
Beating 38 year old Fed at Wimby (MP's down) and Aus open in 5 and 4 sets is hardly anything to send to the other galaxies or write home about.
Still the versions of Fed that he beat from 2012 onwards were no where NEAR 2004-2007 Fed. 2008-2010 Nadal is imo still much better movement than anything 2011 onwards.
The 12 slams were from his 30th birthdays onwards against people Fed and Nadal would also routine if not for the injured and much older slower versions of themselves. Even the 6th/7th best version of Wimby 2012 Fed would clean up from 2018 Wimledon onwards too.
Nadal was injured a lot during his 2nd weaker prime (09/12/14/16) and of course his form hiatus in 15/16. Also injuries during (18/21/22/23/24).
These factors definitely come into play and decided a lot of what has happened till this date.
Last edited:
messiahrobins
Legend
I totally agree with it all. My view is the earth has all the natural ingredients for all life to benefit from. Djokovic i think shares the same view and his greatest legacy (albeit i can see pharmaceutical companies doing all they can to discredit him and the Global Elite as well) could be to be the beacon of hope for all of us to look to in terms of staying healthier longer. Novak deserves enormous credit for his achievements.
nighthawkrr
Semi-Pro
MMA takes many of the best fighters now. Jon Jones would’ve been a great boxer had he gone that route. Same with McGregor and the Diaz brothers. They just all went MMA because it’s the darling sport of my generation. Also it’s a better sport IMO. But both suck compared to tennis. Tyson should’ve been a tennis player. He would’ve been much happier and he would’ve made been the goat.
It's not the MMA, it's the major US sports. Jon Jones' brothers played in the NFL and were arguably better physical specimens. All the 6'+ (a mere 20% of the male population) freaks are siphoned off into the NBA, NFL and MLB, whereas in the 60s - 80s many of them went into boxing.
Born-in-81 Nadal would have more success across the board than actual Nadal. Then he would've much greater success in sweeter-than-sugar 00's than in dog-eat-dog days of 10's.
Last edited:
Phenomenal
Hall of Fame
dal dal dal Which dal is the best Dal?
Phenomenal
Hall of Fame
Good points but no list are complete without mentioning Nadal's injuries so it's hard to make any analysis or hyphos..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 (
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?
Essentially Fred’s m u g g e r y as a wee lad means that really he should be thankful for
- 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)
Roland Garros 2009being 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
What all but especially Nadal does is remarkable despite missing so much.
Nadal: slam entries - 67, slam victories - 22, percent - 32.84%
Djokovic: slam entries - 73, slam victories -24, percent - 32.87%
Phenomenal
Hall of Fame
People who follow know the difference or which they missed or not. Nadal is already year longer and still not retired. And started to play earlier than Djokovic by age so it includes those. Idk how many times i responded this.
Nadal entered RG 16 and Wimbledon 2022 but couldn't continue. Even 7 is not little.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
LOL. Beat Foreman? 1970s Foreman was a monster. Anyone who comes towards Foreman with aggressive intent, like Frazier and Norton did, is getting KO'd.
Ali was smart enough to make Foreman be the big aggressor, exhaust himself out and then Ali pounced. Even then, Foreman being KO'd was more down to exhaustion than being hurt. It was Ali's finest moment, without doubt.
messiahrobins
Legend
Really? Finer than the Frazier wins?
TheGoldenEra1990’s
Hall of Fame
Maybe not if one considers surfaces were a little bit faster during feds heyday of 03-07. Nadal/Djoker liked slower surfaces. I have no way of proving that though LOL. It’s not like night and day difference between the 1990’s and now
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yes, definitely. Foreman was 40-0 with 37 KOs at the time, had flattened both Frazier and Norton with 2nd round KOs (Foreman put the slugger Frazier down 6 times in 2 rounds), while Ali had lost to both Frazier and Norton, and had got taken the distance by both of them multiple times.
messiahrobins
Legend
Was Frazier not past his best though when he fought Foreman? norton benefitted from facing all the legends bar Foreman past their prime i think, admittedly i was a kid then so i am going off tapes i have seen years later rather than remembering the build up to the fights etc.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Foreman had an epic fight with Ron Lyle in 1976, like a Hagler-Hearns that one. Foreman's first boxing career ended in 1977 by losing to Jimmy Young on points, after uncharacteristically failing to finish Young off earlier in the fight when he had him on the verge of a KO. Foreman collapsed afterwards, and said that he had an out of body experience, which made him very religious. Foreman left boxing for a decade after that, and when he came back he treated it like he was beginning his boxing career all over again.
Prior to Rumble in the Jungle, Peralta is the one who gave Foreman a bit ot bother, but Foreman still beat him twice, a 10 round decision and then a 10th round KO in a 15-rounder. In Foreman's last 12 fights before facing Ali, Foreman won 9 times by 2nd round KO, twice by 1st round KO, and once by 4th round RTD. That run included wins over Frazier and Norton.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Frazier was the reigning undefeated world champion in 1973, 29-0 record, who had beaten the then undefeated Ali in 1971 in the Fight of the Century. Foreman knocked that Frazier down 6 times in a 2nd round KO.
Foreman beat Frazier again in 1976, in a 5th round TKO.
Norton was Ali's Kryptonite, in my opinion.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
I know. That was half the post though.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
RS
Bionic Poster
He could definitely be caught though. Nobody is unbeatable.
RS
Bionic Poster
I don't know. Neither would just stand there they would be wary of eachother. Both lost a small step then so it's a interesting matchup.
RS
Bionic Poster
21 years. yikes
messiahrobins
Legend
In what way was Norton Ali's kyrptonite? If i am right they only fought in the late 70's, and Ali was a shadow of his previous self. When Frazier beat Ali i think Ali was very rusty as he had been in the armed forces and hadnt fought for a while, is that right?
In some ways this is a bit like the Big 3 arguments in tennis, as i kind of think of Muhamed Ali as he was as Cassius Clay, i.e lightening speed both with foootwork and hand speed. He had all that still in the Frazier fights mainly, but by the time he fought Foreman and Norton all that was long gone..
In terms of Kyrptonite, i always thought Foreman was Frazier's as you have illustrated beautifully above.
May i ask how you would rank the four of them?
And may i also ask how you would see a peak Tyson Fury v Lennox Lewis?
Similar threads
