Every open era great has won the YEC

abmk

Bionic Poster
yearend exhibition championship
says the Nadal fanboy. would've said the opposite if defending former "favorite" Sampras.

does anyone remember how many did borg or laver bother to win?
Yes, Borg won 2.
Masters started in 1970 and only started booming/overtaking WCT finals in importance from mid-late 70s onwards. So not that relevant in case of Laver.
You are welcome.
 
Last edited:

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Most people have Edberg ahead, wth are you talking about? Lol.

You guys can try to talk up the WTF as much as you want, it never was and never will be even close to slams in importance. Once Nadal gets #21 (hopefully next year), nobody will give a f*ck about WTF.
Yeah sure, cry me a river !
 
The YEC is an important tournament, but it is not a requisite to be an Open Era Great. Just like not having a losing H2H against your main rivals is not a requisite. You can ask Fed. And let's not pretend like Fed or Djokovic would have ever won the French Open either if they had been in the position to play Nadal there. Cute thread, though.
 
Did I ever say nobody gives a f*uck about slam?
You can substitute "slam" with a variety of things, like "RG Title", "H2H", "Olympics Gold", "Masters Titles", "# of weeks at #1", etc. Having a YEC championship is not a requisite for anything.

I'm still wondering how many rivers you will cry if that happens.

Yes, the YEC is a hole in Nadal's resume, but Fed and Djokovic also have holes in their resumes.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You can substitute "slam" with a variety of things, like "RG Title", "H2H", "Olympics Gold", "Masters Titles", "# of weeks at #1", etc. Having a YEC championship is not a requisite for anything.

I'm still wondering how many rivers you will cry if that happens.

Yes, the YEC is a hole in Nadal's resume, but Fed and Djokovic also have holes in their resumes.
YEC are bigger than any of those you listed above except RG. Your question is still irrelevant since I've never claimed "nobody gives a f*uck about slam".
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
says the Nadal fanboy. would've said the opposite if defending former "favorite" Sampras.



Yes, Borg won 2.
Masters started in 1970 and only started booming/overtaking WCT finals in importance from late 70s onwards.
You are welcome.
i never defended pete for his exhibition titles.........tennis is/was always about grandslam titles.........there are a different number of other tournaments which keeps hundreds of pro players busy through the season but the true measure of greatness was always centered around slams........

the tournament is just another masters event given its best of 3 nature, it is actually lesser than a masters event as it is slightly forgiving in the form of a round robin format........it can never be compared to slams which are a true test of ability for men as they have to go through best of 5 starting from round 1 till 7 rounds.........
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
It is never even mentioned Becker won 3 Masters titles. Nobody puts him ahead of agassi or edberg for instance
Are you being dense on purpose? YEC titles don't judge GOAThood on their own, but they are a factor. Give me 3 players with Becker's exact resume except one of them has 0 YEC titles. Who gets ranked last out of them?
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
And nobody cares about that except Nadal haters. Really, I NEVER heard anyone being called an ATG for number of WTF titles.


I never said anything about the number of WTF titles. If Rafa already had a WTF title in the bag, then I would agree that this tournament isn't important for him anymore. But he doesn't. And both his competitors do. It's a box he just hasn't checked off on his resume. If he really went all-in on fast HC for a year and won just 1 each at Miami, Paris, and WTF, he'd easily be at #1 in the Fedalovic race.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
i never defended pete for his exhibition titles.........tennis is/was always about grandslam titles.........there are a different number of other tournaments which keeps hundreds of pro players busy through the season but the true measure of greatness was always centered around slams........
yeah, that's what you say *now*.

the tournament is just another masters event given its best of 3 nature, it is actually lesser than a masters event as it is slightly forgiving in the form of a round robin format........it can never be compared to slams which are a true test of ability for men as they have to go through best of 5 starting from round 1 till 7 rounds.........
LOL, YEC requires you to beat atleast 4 top 10 players, unlike Masters tournaments. Its why RR format. Because you have only top 10 players. Something you pretend not to understand.

Slams > YEC > Masters

but then keep being bitter as your boy Nadal hasn't won it.
 
The fact that the WTF is apparently (for some) prerequisite for GOAThood, hence the discussion about Nadsy not having it, and you pointing at Borg for having holes in his resume, when his resume (as impressive as it is) is not related to the GOAT debate (again, for those that condone it, I don't) says that it is you who has problems with logic. Then you went one step further, and announced that it is apparently either GOAT, or "nobody" with nothing in between. Two infractions only solidified by the hint for multiple personality issues (the "we").

:cool:
Your fact, not A fact.

Enormous difference.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
Already addressed Edberg, but Agassi is a different case.
Won all 4 slams and the YEC.
Agassi better than Becker on slow HC, fast HC & clay (the 3 slams - AO, FO&USO); Becker is better on grass&indoors
More # of weeks for Agassi as #1. Also has the famous dominating h2h vs Becker.
Better longevity for Agassi (88 RG to 2005 USO are marker points, even with some inconsistency in between). For Becker, 1985 to 1996.

So I don't see an achievements wise case for Becker.
What about Agassi v sampras? Interesting to see what people think years later given Sampras had no OG less M1000 and never reached an FO final.
 

Ocean Drive

Hall of Fame
Never made it past the QF at wimbledon.
Only 20 weeks at #1.
3 of his slams came at the AO that no one played at the time.

Not even close to an open era great. More like an open era "meh."
What the hell. Unbelievable that someone on a tennis forum can say something like this. Many teeny boppers like yourself have been brainwashed by this current era of inflated achievements of 3 people... If Wilander walks into any room, you would feel his presence.

You really need perspective. Mats Wilander is a tennis superstar. 7 slams, world number 1, 3 time Davis Cup champion, Wimbledon winner in doubles.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
What about Agassi v sampras? Interesting to see what people think years later given Sampras had no OG less M1000 and never reached an FO final.
6 slams is too big a difference.
Sampras better than Agassi on fast HC, grass and indoors. Agassi on slow HC and clay
Way more # of weeks and years for Sampras at #1.
Sampras with edge in h2h.
 

Beckerserve

Hall of Fame
The trolling is getting wearisome. Everyone on the planet puts Becker ahead of Edberg. Just compare their career stats. Same # of slams, but everything else is in Boris' favor.
But Edberg had more weeks at no.1? Past few weeks there have been numerous threads about weeks at no.1 lol.
I agree Becker is greater btw. Obviously as i am a Becker fan
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Lol, no. Only butthurt haters will. Real tennis fans know that slams are the most important tournaments, and he won them all. Nadal in WTF isn't worse than Federer and Djokovic are in RG, just not as lucky as them.
so you decide who real tennis fans are? i watch tennis since 1995, and every player who was considered goat or goat candidate dominated the wtf in his prime, except one player. guess who?

this thread alone has over 400 comments. and there have been many others about nadals failure at the wtf.

nadal has zero wtf, only two wimbledons which is the most important slam, and is many many many weeks behind federer and djokovic abd few others in weeks number 1.

it is impossible to overlook these things.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
so you decide who real tennis fans are? i watch tennis since 1995, and every player who was considered goat or goat candidate dominated the wtf in his prime, except one player. guess who?

this thread alone has over 400 comments. and there have been many others about nadals failure at the wtf.

nadal has zero wtf, only two wimbledons which is the most important slam, and is many many many weeks behind federer and djokovic abd few others in weeks number 1.

it is impossible to overlook these things.
Most important slam? LMAO. This is why you shouldn't be taken seriously. Yeah, Federer's best slam is of course the most important. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I wonder if RG would be the "least important slam" if Federer had more than 1 title there.

Some Federer fans think their hero deserves more credit for being good on grass than Nadal for being MUCH better on clay. This is honestly sad.
 
Last edited:

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Most important slam? LMAO. This is why you shouldn't be taken seriously. Yeah, Federer's best slam is of course the most important. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I wonder if RG would be the "least important slam" if Federer had more than 1 title there.

Some Federer fans think their hero deserves more credit for being good on grass than Nadal for being MUCH better on clay. This is honestly sad.
wimbledon has always been the most important slam. before federer and after federer.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
Stop trolling. You just want to bring Nadal down at all cost? Yeah, winning a useless "tournament" which allows the winner to lose a match is more important than winning a 20th slam? Nice joke.

Leave alone the fact that every new RG Nadal wins is a new record in tennis history. 13 titles at a single slam!!! What would 1 WTF do to his legacy? Absolutely nothing. He wouldn't beat any records with this, he wouldn't even get close to any records. Even had he won it nobody would even remember this title after his retires. People would remember 20 slams, 13 RG, all the records on clay and so on. Nobody would remember him for winning 1 WTF. Saying WTF is more important for him than RG is not just ridiculous, it's LUNACY.
He actually would achieve the career Super Slam if he won it and would join Agassi as the only two to ever do it.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
wimbledon has always been the most important slam. before federer and after federer.
Last time I checked it gives 2000 points, just like all the other slams. The fact that it is the oldest slam doesn't change it. You are basically saying that a good player on grass is by default greater than a good player on clay? This sounds like total BS, and you know it. Every player has a favorite surface, and being great on grass isn't any better than being great on clay.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
Last time I checked it gives 2000 points, just like all the other slams. The fact that it is the oldest slam doesn't change it. You are basically saying that a good player on grass is by default greater than a good player on clay? This sounds like total BS, and you know it. Every player has a favorite surface, and being great on grass isn't any better than being great on clay.
paris bercy also has same amount of points as rome and cincinnati, ask a player what tournament he would rather win.

every player who is equally strong on all surfaces will choose wimbledon as the slam he wants the most to win.
 

Xemi666

Professional
Typical VB.
Anyone with a brain wouldn't say the WTF is meaningless.
Everything is relative. It's meaningless compared to slams, much less compared to getting the slam record. But you're an obvious troll, so that's my last response to you, cya hater :cool:
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
But you said winning it would add nothing to his legacy. A career Super Slam would have been a big deal and gave him something over his rivals.
How many tennis fans even heard about this "super slam"? I hear about it just for the second time, first time was somewhere in 2013. On the other hand, every person who follows tennis knows about the 13 RG record. So all that talk about RG not being important for him makes no sense to me.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
How many tennis fans even heard about this "super slam"? I hear about it just for the second time, first time was somewhere in 2013. On the other hand, every person who follows tennis knows about the 13 RG record.
The RG record was already far out of reach for anyone to ever break even before he won 13 though and I would say at 12, double the amount of Borg, he had already set that mark. Adding another didn't do much for his legacy. It just added another Slam to his count which is great but still if he had won RG and WTF, the WTF title is the one that would have stood out because he would have completed a rare set.
 

StrongRule

G.O.A.T.
The RG record was already far out of reach for anyone to ever break even before he won 13 though and I would say at 12, double the amount of Borg, he had already set that mark. Adding another didn't do much for his legacy. It just added another Slam to his count which is great but still if he had won RG and WTF, the WTF title is the one that would have stood out because he would have completed a rare set.
First of all, if you didn't notice that was his 20th slam. So far nobody ever won more than that. Also, I don't understand how any slam might not add anything to his legacy. 13 is greater than 12, it is a big question how far he can get there. The numbers are unreal.
 

NoleFam

Talk Tennis Guru
First of all, if you didn't notice that was his 20th slam. So far nobody ever won more than that. Also, I don't understand how any slam might not add anything to his legacy. 13 is greater than 12, it is a big question how far he can get there. The numbers are unreal.
It doesn't add much to his RG legacy is what I mean. You are talking about his RG legacy and having 13 of them. Sure that 13th one took him to 20 to tie the record so in the grand scheme of things it was monumental that he won it but it would have been monumental had he won any of the 4 Slams, not just RG.
 

JasonZ

Semi-Pro
First of all, if you didn't notice that was his 20th slam. So far nobody ever won more than that. Also, I don't understand how any slam might not add anything to his legacy. 13 is greater than 12, it is a big question how far he can get there. The numbers are unreal.
there is no rule that says that the player with the most slams is the goat. it is an opinion.

and as long nadal doesnt win another wimbledon and at least 1 wtf, he will never ever be goat in my eyes, even if he wins 30 french opens
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
It doesn't add much to his RG legacy is what I mean. You are talking about his RG legacy and having 13 of them. Sure that 13th one took him to 20 to tie the record so in the grand scheme of things it was monumental that he won it but it would have been monumental had he won any of the 4 Slams, not just RG.
agree doesn't really matter whether it's 13 or 14 (small difference) ,,would be much better to win any other slam for his legacy in the future
 
Top