Federer vs Nadal: The GOAT debate...:

[plum]

I have finally come to terms with the fact that-- with the exception of Grand Slam Finals under the belt as a criterion-- that Federer, no more than Nadal, can be considered the greatest of all time. That said I think the GOAT debate is just a way for certain personality types to get caught up projecting their unfulfilled egos, onto the GOAT archtype, through the players. In reality there can be no such thing as the greatest of all time, because all-time has yet to unfold; and because Tennis-time itself is locked into so-called eras. It is even crazier when the GOAT monkeys start hypothetically comparing top players between eras.

 

[Semi-Pro]

We have/had wayy too many threads such as this already

 

[Li Ching Yuen]

 

[Rippy]

 

[plum]

Well then you can consider this the Final thread on the subject. I am making a very specific -- albeit philosophical point -- one that may be over the head of a lot of the teenagers on the forum: There is no such thing as a GOAT, except the one that I make Raw Goat's Milk Kefir from...

 

[fps]

Well then you can consider this the Final thread on the subject. I am making a very specific -- albeit philosophical point -- one that may be over the head of a lot of the teenagers on the forum:

and the most self-important post of the day award goes to....

 

[Mustard]

We have/had wayy too many threads such as this already

Agreed. I don't know why people need to create a new thread when there's usually an existing thread on the very subject, often on the same page.

 

[muzza123]

Agreed. I don't know why people need to create a new thread when there's usually an existing thread on the very subject, often on the same page.

Cos I want everyone to look at MY post and defer to MY superior learned insights.

Don't pretend you don't know.

 

[Sartorius]

Well then you can consider this the Final thread on the subject. I am making a very specific -- albeit philosophical point

...which must have been made umpteen times by other people up to now. That's probably the reason you're getting hissed at.

 

[Breaker]

Federer is the GOAT.

 

[Rippy]

Federer is the GOAT.

I think the OP secretly meant that.

 

[plum]

Well... I can say this, and it will be my final comment on this thread. I can see by the responses here, that this is a sub-forum where people like to argue. So, argue on: There is NO such thing as a GOAT, whether anyone likes it or not. :???:

 

[Rippy]

Well... I can say this, and it will be my final comment on this thread. I can see by the responses here, that this is a sub-forum where people like to argue. So, argue on: There is NO such thing as a GOAT, whether anyone likes it or not. :???:

Really? You don't think there is/was one tennis player who was better than everyone else ever?

There probably is.

 

[plum]

All right, foot in mouth...
I apologize for my arrogance.
I made a mistake that I can't change.
This thread should have been entitled: The Goat Debate: There is no such thing as a GOAT.

Then, personally, I feel that the thread would have the individuality and hence worthiness of a new non-redundant thread.

In other words my idea really has nothing to do with Nadal or Federer, other than that they are the current candidates, in this era, to make the point.

This thread isn't about who IS the GOAT. It is about who isn't...:shock:

 

[r2473]

Well then you can consider this the Final thread on the subject. I am making a very specific -- albeit philosophical point -- one that may be over the head of a lot of the teenagers on the forum:

I think Plato wrote about this topic in "The Republic". He concluded Federer is GOAT.

Aristotle disagreed and wrote extensively about Laver's claims.

Years later Kant argued for Nadal.

But that is the problem with philosophers. All they ever do is argue.

 

[KingOfTennis]

didnt even bother reading the op. i can already tell that this thread is unnecessary and is another troll thread.

 

[raiden031]

Nadal is now a GOAT contender because he won 2 slams this year and proved that the events of 2009 RG and Wimbledon and early 2010 AO were flukes all around. Since Nadal won in 2010, it is a guarantee that he would have won in 2009 (if uninjured) and is a further guarantee that he will win every slam for the next 2-3 years because these two slams make him now unbeatable on all surfaces.

 

[TheTruth]

I have finally come to terms with the fact that-- with the exception of Grand Slam Finals under the belt as a criterion-- that Federer, no more than Nadal, can be considered the greatest of all time. That said I think the GOAT debate is just a way for certain personality types to get caught up projecting their unfulfilled egos, onto the GOAT archtype, through the players. In reality there can be no such thing of the greatest of all time, because all-time as yet to unfold; and because time itself is locked into so-called eras. It is even crazier when the GOAT monkeys start hypothetically comparing top players between eras.

I don't understand why people are getting on your case, this is one of the best threads ever. And I agree, my thread was to say, if you are going to argue, why not argue with real facts so that it was a level playing field. I wasn't around to see Laver, Hoad, and all those guys, so it's interesting to know more on the subject. At the same time, the more I read, the more I come to your conclusion.

So, imo, good job.

 

[1970CRBase]

I don't believe in the existence of a personal GOAT the way the Nadiots and FdTards do

 

[jackson vile]

Pancho Gonzales had 27 slams, end game!

 

[ThreadintheNeedle]

My dad has a wood racquet that says Pancho Gonzalez on it.