I think prime Fed is overrated on this forum

[sadowsk2]

In all reality you can't definitively say Fed is better than JMac or Sampras or Lendl and vice a versa. What I think you can make a convincing argument is say Fed was the GOAT of his era.... Unfortunately the legion of Fed slappies on this board get their panties all wet when some challenges his "undisputed" God-like status

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Again the numbers can be spun any way you like- ala your brain tricking you. jMac never even participated in the Aussie Open.... So naturally he would have fewer slams.... The way who gets calculated to be ranked #1 changed so over time so that is debatable... You see where I'm getting at??. You saying "The achievement data, while not perfect, is the lesser of two evils." is subjective in and of itself

Number can be spun yes, but less so than your subjective interpretation. This era is better because I said so, therefore it so! But you still don't seem to listen, I agree the data are not perfect. But they are better than YOUR personal belief. Why? Because they stand regardless. Anything you say about one era being great, I can just counter by saying the opposite. They both simply cancel out. The data while not perfect and subject to manipulation is far better than any personal opinion. And I was an avid tennis fan in the early 80s watching every match of every slam as much as it was televised.

 

[marcub]

So now your turn to stop skewing my posts and try arguing how Roddick, Hewitt, and mid 30s Agassi is tougher competition than facing many multi slam winners near their best as Sampras, McEnroe, Lendl, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, Courier, Edberg, Becker, Newcombe, Borg, all did. Good luck with that.

Boy, are we worked up!

If I may ask - are you old enough to pertinently bring Newcombe and Rosewall in this discussion?

A case could be made where any single one of the "greats" you mentioned did not in any single year have to face consistent opposition from more than 1 - only occasionally 2 - other greats.

Laver, for one, routinely got his butt kicked by Lew Hoad on the pro circuit, yet not many know about Hoad.

Mcenroe is one extremely overrated pr!ck, just like his brother in arms, Connors. A guy with hardly any ground game and another one who built a career with a sliced forehand.

Borg - had to deal with the above two overrated pr!cks, but he would have been great regardless, he was just that good.

Lendl - that's another real great, if anything underappreciated, and even he only dealt with the above pr!ck on the way of getting limp and with an ante-prime Becker. Yes, Wilander was a pusher.

Courier?!? How is this mediocrity even brought up in this discussion?!

So, take a pill and chill. By no means was the 2004-07 era weaker than any other. The top dog had most of the time only one other heavy weight to deal with. In the 90's Roddick would have had 4-5 slams. Nowadays a likeable guy like Edberg would be sub-Murray.

As for 2007-present, without question, this is the best era ever. Not just at the top. Al the way down to top 30 and lower.

 

[sadowsk2]

Prime Federer was nearly untouchable. It took the best claycourter in Nadal to prevent Federer from a calendar slam. What is overrated about 16 Slams?

Nothing. He's the GOAT of his prime era.... But no data supports he's greater than all the past greats and vice versa... He belongs in that same special category as Sampras, Mac, Lendl, Borg etc

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

In all reality you can't definitively say Fed is better than JMac or Sampras or Lendl and vice a versa. What I think you can make a convincing argument is say Fed was the GOAT of his era.... Unfortunately the legion of Fed slappies on this board get their panties all wet when some challenges his "undisputed" God-like status

By the same token you can't say Sampras was definitively better than Donald Young. All you can say is he achieved more.

 

[ViscaB]

Valid points.

A group of Federer fans here are like a sect though and will never admit to this.

 

[sadowsk2]

Number can be spun yes, but less so than your subjective interpretation. This era is better because I said so, therefore it so! But you still don't seem to listen, I agree the data are not perfect. But they are better than YOUR personal belief. Why? Because they stand regardless. Anything you say about one era being great, I can just counter by saying the opposite. They both simply cancel out. The data while not perfect and subject to manipulation is far better than any personal opinion. And I was an avid tennis fan in the early 80s watching every match of every slam as much as it was televised.

I guess that's where we have to agree to disagree then.... Numbers, and how those numbers are interpreted, and the weighting of a particular number is all subjective.... I go back the example I laid out before- were Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer better quarterbacks than Dan Marino or Fran Tarkenton because they have Super Bowl rings? I'll stick with my subjective "eye test" as in my humble opinion it's no more objective than looking at "numbers" as the undisputed tell-all

 

[sadowsk2]

By the same token you can't say Sampras was definitively better than Donald Young. All you can say is he achieved more.

Seriously now? Lol. You do take things soley to the extreme.

 

[heftylefty]

Nothing. He's the GOAT of his prime era.... But no data supports he's greater than all the past greats and vice versa... He belongs in that same special category as Sampras, Mac, Lendl, Borg etc

But Federer, in his prime, contented for every Slam. That's big difference between the guys you mentioned.

 

[sadowsk2]

Seriously now? Lol. You do take things soley to the extreme.

Ive seen both play coupled with their achievements to say I believe Sampras to be th better player.. You don't hear me spouting off Alex Corretja is equalling as good as Fed now do you #sigh#

 

[Tammo]

Prime Federer was nearly untouchable. It took the best claycourter in Nadal to prevent Federer from a calendar slam. What is overrated about 16 Slams?

the fact that the first 7 he only played the same person twice in the finals. It shows how weak the field was.

 

[sadowsk2]

But Federer, in his prime, contented for every Slam. That's big difference between the guys you mentioned.

I've explained my rationale on several fronts to address that statement.

 

[sadowsk2]

the fact that the first 7 he only played the same person twice in the finals. It shows how weak the field was.

Yep... I'll argue the "competition is weak card" till the day I die.. But it is debatable and that's what makes sports so great

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I guess that's where we have to agree to disagree then.... Numbers, and how those numbers are interpreted, and the weighting of a particular number is all subjective.... I go back the example I laid out before- were Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer better quarterbacks than Dan Marino or Fran Tarkenton because they have Super Bowl rings? I'll stick with my subjective "eye test" as in my humble opinion it's no more objective than looking at "numbers" as the undisputed tell-all

I don't disagree with you, numbers can be skewed and interpreted differently. What determines the greatest quarterback is not simply Superbowl wins, there are other factors. Moreover, those are team sports which further complicates the issue.

All I'm saying is your subjective eye test is more easy to refute than the numbers. Say something and I will simply say no. But you can never erase how many weeks at #1, # slams, Master's, Grand Slam, someone has won. Look at Laver he won his Grand Slam on essentially the same surface, but that does not take away the objective fact that he won it. A Grand Slam is a Grand Slam. The data > subjective eye test.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Seriously now? Lol. You do take things soley to the extreme.

The statements you make must be far reaching and consistent across all eras.

 

[heftylefty]

Nothing. He's the GOAT of his prime era.... But no data supports he's greater than all the past greats and vice versa... He belongs in that same special category as Sampras, Mac, Lendl, Borg etc

the fact that the first 7 he only played the same person twice in the finals. It shows how weak the field was.

You really believe Federer could not compete in another era?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Ive seen both play coupled with their achievements to say I believe Sampras to be th better player.. You don't hear me spouting off Alex Corretja is equalling as good as Fed now do you #sigh#

I agree Sampras > Young based on achievements. By the same token Federer > Sampras based on achievements. This is all that can be said. Although in the case of Federer and Sampras we do have at least one data point with Fed beating Sampras at Wimby2001. Not much to be sure, but better than nothing.

 

[sadowsk2]

I don't disagree with you, numbers can be skewed and interpreted differently. What determines the greatest quarterback is not simply Superbowl wins, there are other factors. Moreover, those are team sports which further complicates the issue.

All I'm saying is your subjective eye test is more easy to refute than the numbers. Say something and I will simply say no. But you can never erase how many weeks at #1, # slams, Master's, Grand Slam, someone has won. Look at Laver he won his Grand Slam on essentially the same surface, but that does not take away the objective fact that he won it. A Grand Slam is a Grand Slam. The data > subjective eye test.

I guess I feel one can just as easily refute WHY or HOW they got the numbers they did realative to someone else... Was Buster Douglass a better boxer than Mike Tyson? They were heavy weight champs (individual sport to!).., the head to head number (albeit one data point) favors Buster.... I'm happy putting Fed up with the greats but I can't say he's greater than them all..

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I guess I feel one can just as easily refute WHY or HOW they got the numbers they did realative to someone else... Was Buster Douglass a better boxer than Mike Tyson? They were heavy weight champs (individual sport to!).., the head to head number (albeit one data point) favors Buster.... I'm happy putting Fed up with the greats but I can't say he's greater than them all..

You can refute the numbers I agree, but not as easily. Try to refute that Fed achieved more than Sampras based on his #slams being greater than Pete's without resorting to weak era/strong era crap. As for Buster and Mike, Mike also has other stats in his favour to counter the H2H. Pete does not over Fed.

 

[sadowsk2]

I agree Sampras > Young based on achievements. By the same token Federer > Sampras based on achievements. This is all that can be said. Although in the case of Federer and Sampras we do have at least one data point with Fed beating Sampras at Wimby2001. Not much to be sure, but better than nothing.

I said I've seen both play (eye ball test so to speak) COUPLED with achievement... not achievement alone. I wish Fed could face Sampras in his prime and see if he could handle that 1st and 2nd serve over 5 sets... and vice a versa... Until both players put up what I consider great achievement and it comes down to how I think they would match up and on what surface

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I said I've seen both play (eye ball test so to speak) COUPLED with achievement... not achievement alone. I wish Fed could face Sampras in his prime and see if he could handle that 1st and 2nd serve over 5 sets... and vice a versa... Until both players put up what I consider great achievement and it comes down to how I think they would match up and on what surface

Exactly, and without that prime prime match up, all we have that points us in any direction whatsoever is the data. Based on the eyeball test -> *********** will say Pete > Fed, ******* reverses. We are left at a standstill. The data remain.

 

[sadowsk2]

You can refute the numbers I agree, but not as easily. Try to refute that Fed achieved more than Sampras based on his #slams being greater than Pete's without resorting to weak era/strong era crap.

I will say he won more slams but Sampras won a comparable amount of slams where I think there is debate between the two. How many would Fed win if he played the draws Sampras did and vice a versa. We will never know That's why I can easily IMo refute the numbers as the sole factor and where the eye ball test comes in. HOW you got to winning a slam is different for each player and different every time around....

 

[sadowsk2]

Exactly, and without that prime prime match up, all we have that points us in any direction whatsoever is the data. Based on the eyeball test -> *********** will say Pete > Fed, ******* reverses. We are left at a standstill. The data remain.

Fwiw this *********** will say Fed would pop Sampras at the FO and AO... Why? My eye ball test (IMO) tells me fed plays better on clay hence my FO rationale... Again it's debatable as we have no large data size

 

[TopFH]

Can someone post a list of Federer's opponents in Slam finals?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I will say he won more slams but Sampras won a comparable amount of slams where I think there is debate between the two. How many would Fed win if he played the draws Sampras did and vice a versa. We will never know That's why I can easily IMo refute the numbers as the sole factor and where the eye ball test comes in. HOW you got to winning a slam is different for each player and different every time around....

Yes Sampras won a comparable amount of slams but decidedly LESS. Draw? You're resorting to weak era arguments again. See? I can just counter and say Sampras was not good enough to dominate all his opponents the way Fed did, which of course is an equally flawed argument. Can't be done without those subjective arguments. Your eyeball test loses complete meaning through the eyes of a *******. The data remain regardless.

 

[sadowsk2]

Exactly, and without that prime prime match up, all we have that points us in any direction whatsoever is the data. Based on the eyeball test -> *********** will say Pete > Fed, ******* reverses. We are left at a standstill. The data remain.

Which is what brings me back to - the "data" says Buster Douglas was a better box than Mike Tyson in his prime. The data says Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino and is equal to Steve Young and Peyton Manning.... You see what I'm getting at?

 

[Mustard]

Can someone post a list of Federer's opponents in Slam finals?

2003 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Mark Philippoussis (7-6, 6-2, 7-6)
2004 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Marat Safin (7-6, 6-4, 6-2)
2004 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
2004 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Lleyton Hewitt (6-0, 7-6, 6-0)
2005 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 7-6, 6-4)
2005 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-6, 6-1)
2006 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Marcos Baghdatis (5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2)
2006 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6)
2006 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (6-0, 7-6, 6-7, 6-3)
2006 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1)
2007 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Fernando Gonzalez (7-6, 6-4, 6-4)
2007 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
2007 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Novak Djokovic (7-6, 7-6, 6-4)
2008 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-1, 6-3, 6-0)
2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
2008 US Open F: Roger Federer def. Andy Murray (6-2, 7-5, 6-2)
2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
2009 French Open F: Roger Federer def. Robin Soderling (6-1, 7-6, 6-4)
2009 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)
2009 US Open F: Juan Martin del Potro def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2)
2010 Australian Open F: Roger Federer def. Andy Murray (6-3, 6-4, 7-6)
2011 French Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1)

 

[Manus Domini]

the fact that the first 7 he only played the same person twice in the finals. It shows how weak the field was.

Or how strong it was that it was a throw up of who would get to the finals (except for Federer, who'd dominate every era, and would have more slams in this weak one)

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Fwiw this *********** will say Fed would pop Sampras at the FO and AO... Why? My eye ball test (IMO) tells me fed plays better on clay hence my FO rationale... Again it's debatable as we have no large data size

******* eyeball test refutes everything your eyes see. Severe ******* eyeball test says Fed >>>>>>> Sampras on fast grass. Now what?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Which is what brings me back to - the "data" says Buster Douglas was a better box than Mike Tyson in his prime. The data says Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino and is equal to Steve Young and Peyton Manning.... You see what I'm getting at?

No you missed what I already posted. Tyson has other data that says he's better that counter the Buster KO. Again superbowl wins is not the only factor that determines who is the best QB, on top of which they play a team sport. You're not getting anywhere, you are repeating the same flawed arguments.

 

[sadowsk2]

Exactly, and without that prime prime match up, all we have that points us in any direction whatsoever is the data. Based on the eyeball test -> *********** will say Pete > Fed, ******* reverses. We are left at a standstill. The data remain.

I think data can let you couple who the greats were... But there isnt the RIGHT data you need to directly compare various great.... Hence where a hopefully objective witness to these various players could offer some debatable insight- but again I stress debatable

By RIGHT data you'd need Fed - Sampras in their respective primes playing H2H over a large sample size

 

[TopFH]

Thanks Mustard. If not for Federer, the field would be:
Nadal: 12 slams
Djokovic: 5 slams
Murray: 2 slams
Roddick: 5 slams
Hewitt: 3 slams
Safin: 3 slams
Agassi: 9 slams

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I think data can let you couple who the greats were... But there isnt the RIGHT data you need to directly compare various great.... Hence where a hopefully objective witness to these various players could offer some debatable insight- but again I stress debatable

Agree there isn't the right data to compare the various greats over different eras. All we have is that they played the same game with the same rules. And some achieved more than others. Those are the data. It's not perfect, but it's all we have. 'Objective witness' is a contradiction in terms.

 

[TopFH]

Plus any other semifinal in which Fed won and the other would have most probably won a la FO this year.

 

[sadowsk2]

No you missed what I already posted. Tyson has other data that says he's better that counter the Buster KO. Again superbowl wins is not the only factor that determines who is the best QB, on top of which they play a team sport. You're not getting anywhere, you are repeating the same flawed arguments.

Again what data would that be? And under who's authority mandates that those numbers counter to Buster KO? You see your flawed argument of blindly seeking shelter under the guise of "data"

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I think data can let you couple who the greats were... But there isnt the RIGHT data you need to directly compare various great.... Hence where a hopefully objective witness to these various players could offer some debatable insight- but again I stress debatable

By RIGHT data you'd need Fed - Sampras in their respective primes playing H2H over a large sample size

AGREEEEEEED, BUT we don't have that!!!! You can see that can't you? All we have is that Fed lead 1-0 over pete in h2h and he won more slams. Oh yes and then we have your eyeball test that Pete was better on fast grass, which is contradicted by a 1000 *******s. What is so hard to understand here?

 

[TopFH]

As DjokovicForTheWin says: Data doesn't lie. If not for Federer, this would a super strong era with 10+ people winning the slams.

 

[sadowsk2]

Agree there isn't the right data to compare the various greats over different eras. All we have is that they played the same game with the same rules. And some achieved more than others. Those are the data. It's not perfect, but it's all we have. 'Objective witness' is a contradiction in terms.

It not being perfect isn't accurate. It being INSUFFICIENT is more accurate. ;-) that is what apparently is so hard to understand

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Again what data would that be? And under who's authority mandates that those numbers counter to Buster KO? You see your flawed argument of blindly seeking shelter under the guise of "data"

Didn't mike tyson have a better W/L record? More KOs? I'm sure there are others. No I am not blindly seeking you are simply not reading. I never said H2H was the only thing to consider not in the case of tennis or boxing. You seem to be saying that however.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

It not being perfect isn't accurate. It being INSUFFICIENT is more accurate. ;-) that is what apparently is so hard to understand

Yes the data is insufficient, but eyeball test is completely meaningless.

Insufficient >> meaningless.

 

[sadowsk2]

Yes the data is insufficient, but eyeball test is completely meaningless.

Insufficient >> meaningless.

For all intents and purposes of this discussion insufficient = meaningless

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

For all intents and purposes of this discussion insufficient = meaningless

No that is not correct.

 

[TopFH]

LOL at the "strong era" ****s. Nobody has answered my post. We can use subjective analysis every time. But, only numbers show real things. Also, no era is weak or strong. They just are.

 

[Mustard]

Didn't mike tyson have a better W/L record? More KOs? I'm sure there are others. No I am not blindly seeking you are simply not reading. I never said H2H was the only thing to consider not in the case of tennis or boxing. You seem to be saying that however.

Going into his fight with Douglas, Tyson was 37-0 with 33 of those wins by knockout.

 

[Mustard]

As I said earlier in this thread, a player can only beat who is in front of them. All this "strong era/weak era" stuff is pure hyperbole.

 

[TopFH]

Mustard, where do you get your numbers? Is it a sports site that does it, or Wikipedia?

 

[Mustard]

Mustard, where do you get your numbers? Is it a sports site that does it, or Wikipedia?

I have tennis notes. The Tyson stats are easily recallable.

 

[TopFH]

You mean, you take notes on tennis? If you do, care to share them? juanchisiman@hotmail.com

 

[Tony48]

Or how strong it was that it was a throw up of who would get to the finals (except for Federer, who'd dominate every era, and would have more slams in this weak one)

Yes, that's exactly why today's WTA is the strongest era ever. You never know WHO is gonna win!

 

[Docalex007]

Similarly, there is a tendency for those living in the moment to think like children--where everything new (like a brand new toy) "must" be the "best" or they cannot handle it. Its the typical generational bias favoring anything percieved as part of their time to be the "greatest" of anything, when rational minds use relevant data to reach a far different conclusion. For example, there is no generational bias to think Graf or Laver winning the Grand Slam is a supreme achievement; its not about some fanatical devotion to make a current hero into a god, but recognition of the greatest feat.

Acknowledged and accepted and agree.

However, if Federer's is not called some GOAT of all thig s in tennis, all Hell breaks loose, as his TW fanbase becomes hyper-defensive, and denies all data--as seen in this thread.

It all depends on the criteria one sets out for determining GOAT. I'm sure even the irrational and fanatical fans from all camps would agree on this point.

Since sports mostly rely on statistics and numbers, collective achievement and the like when it comes to pinpointing truly great players of whatever sport is being considered... Federer is without question the greatest player of all time in terms of achievement, in terms of records and statistics. Many would include talent as well, but again, that's somewhat subjective as everyone views "talent" differently.