Does federer hurt his legacy with dominating again?

[dominikk1985]

I think it's really cool that the great fed dominates again. he might not be quite as good as he used to but still very good.

But I thought to myself that he might even hurt his legacy a little with that.

his fans always said that nadal and novak only won so much because they were lucky to face a past prime roger and that those matches don't really count.

but now that nadal and novak are fading federer is dominating again. some might say that this suppports the weak era hypothesis. after all prime fed was able to dominate against ferrero, gonzalez and hewitt and now a past prime fed is also dominating the opposition.

so you could argue that he only thrives if the competition is weak.

of course this is overly simplistic. federer is not quite as good as he used to and he also had a bad style matchup with nadal. but still some fans might see it that way.

 

[tennis_pro]

All of this doesn't hold water as Federer is NOT dominating. Out of the last 4 majors he won Wimbledon and lost in the semis of the other 3. In the Masters he can win one tournament (IW), then lose in the 3rd round in Miami to Roddick.

 

[dominikk1985]

All of this doesn't hold water as Federer is NOT dominating. Out of the last 4 majors he won Wimbledon and lost in the semis of the other 3. In the Masters he can win one tournament (IW), then lose in the 3rd round in Miami to Roddick.

he also dominated the olympics and only lost because he was burned out from the semifinal against DP.

He lost a step from his prime but right now he is clearly the best player in the world.

 

[tennis_pro]

he also dominated the olympics and only lost because he was burned out from the semifinal against DP.

He lost a step from his prime but right now he is clearly the best player in the world.

Well on second though you can say that Fed is very consistent on a high level, he hasn't lost before the final of any tournament since the French Open (that includes Halle, Wimbledon, Olympics, Cincinnati) and before the semis of any tournament since Miami. Also, he only lost 1 match before the SF stage in any tournament since August 2011, which is insane given his age.

Back to the topic - is he hurting his legacy? The answer is: no but haterz still gon' hate.

 

[TMF]

That's silly. You don't jeopardize your legacy when you win more-?). Even if he doesn't win anymore, nothing can take away all of his achievement. If he keeps on dominating, more power to him, it add more to his legacy. The one thing that changes is he's further distance himself from the past great legends, and that's what he doing right now.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

I think it's really cool that the great fed dominates again. he might not be quite as good as he used to but still very good.

But I thought to myself that he might even hurt his legacy a little with that.

his fans always said that nadal and novak only won so much because they were lucky to face a past prime roger and that those matches don't really count.

but now that nadal and novak are fading federer is dominating again. some might say that this suppports the weak era hypothesis. after all prime fed was able to dominate against ferrero, gonzalez and hewitt and now a past prime fed is also dominating the opposition.

so you could argue that he only thrives if the competition is weak.

of course this is overly simplistic. federer is not quite as good as he used to and he also had a bad style matchup with nadal. but still some fans might see it that way.

You post as if Djokovic and Nadal are no longer in their primes or something. Nadal is injured now, so I won't even discuss him, but Novak is fine and he is still very young.

Why are other players allowed to "decline" (even when they are in their prime) and Federer can't decline when he is 31 years old.

How ridiculous is everyone on this forum? Federer just beat Djokovic twice in a row, and suddenly Djokovic has faded as opposed to Federer stepping it up. It is a plus for Federer's legacy that he still has the game at 31 to stomp a player in his prime who was just #1 in the world.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

I'm incapable of doing the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize how winning more makes you an inferior player.

 

[smoledman]

We have to come up with reasons why Federer is not that great.

 

[PeteD]

Fed dominates Cincinnati

 

[Mustard]

Federer is adding to his legacy with more winning.

 

[smoledman]

Fed dominates Cincinnati

5-0 in Cincy finals doesn't hurt his legacy. It's comparable to Nadal's 8-0 on Monte Carlo finals.

 

[Towser83]

But if you say Djokovic and nadal are fading, then it could be that post prime Federer is still good enough to beat them when they are fading and that's why he's winning again. It's like 2009 where Federer won 2 slams so people said he was as good as ever, but really he wasn't it's just Nadal wasn't challenging him.

The idea that Federer was not able to beat Djokovic and Nadal at their best and thrived because a weak era, only makes sense if you think Federer is as good now as he ever was. If he has declined and so have Nadal and Djokovic then the relative difference is about the same.

But saying Djokovic and nadal are in decline is pushing it a bit.

 

[West Coast Ace]

So another stealth 'weak era' thread. Come on ladies, something original.

Post 30 winning is huge. All hail the King. He's not quite ready to let any of the fake Princes take over just yet. Another Victory Lap - or two or three...

 

[jaggy]

he also dominated the olympics and only lost because he was burned out from the semifinal against DP.

He lost a step from his prime but right now he is clearly the best player in the world.

He dominated so much that delpotro took a lot from him and then he lost to Murray?

 

[merwy]

I think it's really cool that the great fed dominates again. he might not be quite as good as he used to but still very good.

But I thought to myself that he might even hurt his legacy a little with that.

his fans always said that nadal and novak only won so much because they were lucky to face a past prime roger and that those matches don't really count.

but now that nadal and novak are fading federer is dominating again. some might say that this suppports the weak era hypothesis. after all prime fed was able to dominate against ferrero, gonzalez and hewitt and now a past prime fed is also dominating the opposition.

so you could argue that he only thrives if the competition is weak.

of course this is overly simplistic. federer is not quite as good as he used to and he also had a bad style matchup with nadal. but still some fans might see it that way.

Okay I'm sitting here trying to type some kind of counterargument for your statement but after more than 10 minutes of cracking my brains I have to come to the conclusion that your post is so irrational that I can't even argue with it. It simply makes no sense at all.

You say:
-Federer is dominating now.
-Federer only dominates in weak eras.
-Implying that the competition in the last 12 months has been weak.

But, how can this "era" be weak if Djokovic, Murray(improved), and Nadal (except for the last month) are playing in it? Then which era is the strong one?

You say: "Now that Nadal and Djokovic are fading away, Federer is dominating again."

In what way are they fading away? Because they aren't winning as many tournaments as they used to? Well yeah DUH, since Federer is winning them. Of course the other players don't look as good if Federer is beating them.

In conclusion, this is what you think that needs to happen in order to prove Federer's greatness: Federer needs to dominate in an era where Nadal and Djokovic are.. dominating..

 

[RF-17-GOAT]

wut?
10lolsandwuts.

 

[forzamilan90]

By dominating again he'd prove that he'd furthermore solidify his legacy if anything....it's only a few very apparent people on this forum that seem to find even more chinks in his armor the more he wins

 

[Sentinel]

We have to come up with reasons why Federer is not that great.

Federer is undefeated when Nadal is injured/tired (except for Olympics).

Weak Era = Wimbledon thru WTF

 

[jokinla]

Er, no dominating/winning and getting back to #1 doesn't hurt, it's only on this forum, where someone could possibly think that it does, nowhere in the real world will you hear this or that he can only win when the competition is weak.

 

[RMSserve]

Federer further proves his legacy. He is 31 years old and the year he reaches number 1 again and retains the all time record at number 1, his biggest rival nadal crashes and burns with a knee problem. He proves his ability to use his brain when it comes to strategizing a season instead of going balls to the wall and blowing your knees out. Also after the year Djokovic had last year I thought everyone said the torch was passed on to him? Fed is the best just admit it.

 

[zagor]

I think it's really cool that the great fed dominates again.

He isn't dominating by anyone's standards let alone by his personal standards he set in 2004-2007.

...he might not be quite as good as he used to but still very good.

Yes, he's very good now, in his peak he was fantastic, in his prime he was great.

But I thought to myself that he might even hurt his legacy a little with that.

Oh for Pete's sake.

his fans always said that nadal and novak only won so much because they were lucky to face a past prime roger and that those matches don't really count.

You're oversimplifying things here.

but now that nadal and novak are fading federer is dominating again. some might say that this suppports the weak era hypothesis. after all prime fed was able to dominate against ferrero, gonzalez and hewitt and now a past prime fed is also dominating the opposition.

First of all, as NDQ said why are they (Novak and Nadal) allowed to "fade" away even during their prime years but 31 year old Fed isn't ? Why are Sampras and Agassi allowed to fade away when Fed, Hewitt and Safin were beating them?

Secondly, as I already said Fed isn't dominating, if he wins USO you might have more of a case but that's long way from happening.

so you could argue that he only thrives if the competition is weak.

Actually every player that ever picked up a racquet thrives when the competition is weak (relative to him) so why would you single out Fed is beyond me.

of course this is overly simplistic.

Glad that you realize.

federer is not quite as good as he used to and he also had a bad style matchup with nadal. but still some fans might see it that way.

Yes and some fans might conclude that if a 31 year old Fed can still modify/adapt his game to be reasonably successful today, 2004-2006 Fed would wreak havoc on current field (aside from Nadal at FO for obvious reasons) and thus "weak era" theory has lost a lot of it's bite.

People usually see what they want to see.

 

[RMSserve]

5 years ago parents are telling their kids to hustle like nadal, now they are probably telling their kids, "wait just kidding, don't blow out your knees. Play like fed."

 

[billnepill]

What Federer is doing is amazing and adds to his legacy.

I don't know what else to say.

 

[Raiden]

I think it's really cool that the great fed dominates again. he might not be quite as good as he used to but still very good.

But I thought to myself that he might even hurt his legacy a little with that.

his fans always said that nadal and novak only won so much because they were lucky to face a past prime roger and that those matches don't really count.

but now that nadal and novak are fading federer is dominating again. some might say that this suppports the weak era hypothesis. after all prime fed was able to dominate against ferrero, gonzalez and hewitt and now a past prime fed is also dominating the opposition.

so you could argue that he only thrives if the competition is weak.

of course this is overly simplistic. federer is not quite as good as he used to and he also had a bad style matchup with nadal. but still some fans might see it that way.

This is the most contorted gobbledygook I have ever heard. The only explanation for it is that last week's bagel that "so called real number one" Djoker swallowed is causing you to panic. Basically your entire tennis imagination is collapsing.

Cuz what is going on - what you're witnessing is that Fed just blew up your weak era hypotesis to pieces. See, you and your ilk were wrong to ASSume in the first place that the pre-2010 or so era was weak. It wasn't. That is what's being proven before your eyes in 2012.

 

[Raiden]

Oh and Fed is not alone. Muzza and Del Potro are also doing their part in destroying your weak era fantasy.

 

[DragonBlaze]

What is this, I don't even.....

 

[Sentinel]

What is this, I don't even.....

Let's hope Fred doesn't win all four slams next year. That would be devastating for all the Fred fans, the Ralph fans would be all over us, esp Nation's Smartest Kid and Lolville.

 

[aprilfool]

delete
10.....

 

[DragonBlaze]

Let's hope Fred doesn't win all four slams next year. That would be devastating for all the Fred fans, the Ralph fans would be all over us, esp Nation's Smartest Kid and Lolville.

Federer must be the only tennis player in history who tarnishes his legacy the more he wins! :shock:

That's GOATworthy in itself.

 

[Mick3391]

I think it's really cool that the great fed dominates again. he might not be quite as good as he used to but still very good.

But I thought to myself that he might even hurt his legacy a little with that.

his fans always said that nadal and novak only won so much because they were lucky to face a past prime roger and that those matches don't really count.

but now that nadal and novak are fading federer is dominating again. some might say that this suppports the weak era hypothesis. after all prime fed was able to dominate against ferrero, gonzalez and hewitt and now a past prime fed is also dominating the opposition.

so you could argue that he only thrives if the competition is weak.

of course this is overly simplistic. federer is not quite as good as he used to and he also had a bad style matchup with nadal. but still some fans might see it that way.

I see it just the opposite. Champs of all kinds, I'll use boxing, whenever you see an old champ barely getting by against a average fighter you don't remember their greatness. See Ali losing to Holmes or Spinks, or Holmes losing to Spinks, or Louis losing to Marciano, the greats LOOK the same, but since they are losing that split second we can't see, they lose their aura of invincibility.

I went back and saw Sampras play, MAN what a player, but it seems people only talk of Fed as Fed beat a old Sampras even though Sampras looked the same.

I saw Fed/Sampras in 2005, it was Fed first set, Sampras the second, then Fed the third. Yes it was an exhibition but I was thinking "What if Sampras was in his prime, would he beat Fed"

As much as I love Fed, I still have that question.

 

[pvaudio]

I'm incapable of doing the mental gymnastics it takes to rationalize how winning more makes you an inferior player.

I thought it was just me.

 

[Sentinel]

Oh for Pete's sake.

For Christ's sake, why bring old Pete into this.

 

[Colin]

After reading this, I'm now worried Fed might tank his quarterfinal with Berdych to preserve his legacy. His claim to GOAThood may not survive another U.S. Open title.

 

[West Coast Ace]

What he said...

 

[Mick3391]

What DID he say? My audio didn't pick it up.

 

[West Coast Ace]

What DID he say?

No lip reading skills?

"Shut up!!!"

 

[Mick3391]

No lip reading skills?

"Shut up!!!"

Wild. Never seen a pissed off Fed.

I saw him get attacked at the French Open and he was scared like a child. I mean it was classy that he didn't knock the dude out with his racquet, but he seemed very scared and unable or unwilling to defend himself.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

Wild. Never seen a pissed off Fed.

I saw him get attacked at the French Open and he was scared like a child. I mean it was classy that he didn't knock the dude out with his racquet, but he seemed very scared and unable or unwilling to defend himself.

Haha. What did you expect? Federer to KO some guy trying to put a hat on his head? Soderling may have done it if the guy didn't clip the net while jumping over. I think he may have been able to dodge the first security guard who got him had he not been stumbling.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Haha. What did you expect? Federer to KO some guy trying to put a hat on his head?

+1. Can you imagine if Fed had clubbed him? The clownish French would have hooted and whistled for 30 minutes. Fed was definitely startled - everyone would be. Security is supposed to be able to keep such things from happening. They failed. Then looked stupid as they slipped and slid while Bobo was dashing around.

 

[Mick3391]

Haha. What did you expect? Federer to KO some guy trying to put a hat on his head? Soderling may have done it if the guy didn't clip the net while jumping over. I think he may have been able to dodge the first security guard who got him had he not been stumbling.

Wasn't that amazing! I'm sure Fed can defend himself, but he looked like a kid being picked on.

I suppose he figured out it was some nut, but they have to be careful, remember Monica Seles was stabbed!

 

[Mick3391]

+1. Can you imagine if Fed had clubbed him? The clownish French would have hooted and whistled for 30 minutes. Fed was definitely startled - everyone would be. Security is supposed to be able to keep such things from happening. They failed. Then looked stupid as they slipped and slid while Bobo was dashing around.

Yea I wouldn't want to attack Fed, he could have hit that guy with a BLX 90 and not missed!

 

[Talker]

First of all, Fed isn't dominating again.
Making #1 and winning Wimbledon has changed a lot of peoples mind about Federer though.

I visit/browse many tennis forums.
There's quite a few fans there critical about Fed's achievements which is healthy for tennis forums BTW.

The recent resurgence has given Fed's legacy a tremendous 'shot in the arm', even staunch Borg, Laver and Sampras fans have given much praise to Fed's recent performances.

Given how tough the field is with some of the highest level of play ever in Djokovic and Nadal, Fed has still risen to #1.

Fed has worked on his BH, it gave him trouble for years and he didn't resolve it till the last year or so.
He worked on his net game, coming in to change things up.
Started to use the drop shot, something he shunned for many years.
His serve is a thing of beauty, the placement is just perfect and helps when he comes in.

The movement isn't as good but it's enough and the FH seems to have lost a little zip to it.

Overall, the skill of his game which includes point construction with the physical gifts he has is the best all court tennis by far.

Even the past greats want to see him play and give comments like some *******s.

 

[BHud]

Yes...it's always bad for your legacy when you keep winning...especially when you're ranked #1 at age 31...he needs to stop. How arrogant!

 

[Sentinel]

+1. Can you imagine if Fed had clubbed him? The clownish French would have hooted and whistled for 30 minutes. Fed was definitely startled - everyone would be. Security is supposed to be able to keep such things from happening. They failed. Then looked stupid as they slipped and slid while Bobo was dashing around.

No one can stop NSK! No one.

You simply do not stop Naton's Smartest Kid.

 

[monfed]

Fed's still #1 in the most physical era of tennis on slowed surfaces after playing over 1000 matches in the ATP,that too with a paintbrush. Hahaha more crow for the haters.

 

[forzamilan90]

Fed's still #1 in the most physical era of tennis on slowed surfaces after playing over 1000 matches in the ATP,that too with a paintbrush. Hahaha more crow for the haters.

it is remarkable that with the slowed down surfaces he can keep up with and beat perhaps the greatest baseliners in history