If Nadal and/or Djokovic break Federer’s GS record does the record become meaningless?

fedfan08

Professional
Breaking the GS record right in front of Federer's face while he's still an active player would be a gazillion x more meaningful than Federer breaking Sampras' record who was never a moving target and retired eons ago, and a smaller number of GS titles to match.

Fedtаrds should be lucky Federer kept playing otherwise he would've already been surpassed.
Wait so if Fed wasn’t around Nadal breaking Sampras’ record wouldn’t be meaningful?

Anyway relegating Sampras’s 14 slams to NBD kind of proves my point. How is it special to win this many slams when 4 players have now done it in the past 30 years? Sampras won his 14th slam in 2002. 16 years later 3 players have already passed that record.

In professional golf it’s been 33 years since Jack Nicklaus won his 18th slam and nobody has passed him. Tiger Woods is the closest but still 3 behind. The next closest on the list is Walter Hagen who won his last slam in 1929! The next closest active player is Phil Mickelson with 5 slams. It’s been 6 years since he last won a slam. Think about that. Of the active golfers on tour right now Tiger is 10 clear of his next closest competitor. Would Tiger‘s 15 slams be as impressive if Mickelson had, say, 14 and someone else was sitting at 12 or 13?

This is my whole point. When 3 players in the span of 16 years rack up double digit slam counts each it makes it less impressive. And for those saying this is just Fed whining, put anyone in his place. It’s not about him. It’s about one person dominating being more impressive than multiple people dominating. It’s hard to believe you have 3 freaks that just happen to come along around the same time. And how is tennis exciting anymore when you know who’s going to win a slam before the first point is played? Does anyone seriously think someone other than Djokovic or Nadal (or maybe Fed) is going to win the AO? If the three of them weren’t playing you’d have a much more exciting tournament with a number of players with a real shot of winning it and not one being the overwhelming favorite.
 

TripleATeam

G.O.A.T.
Nor did I say that. I said being better in both of the main conditions (outdoor-indoor). Federer is, right now, better than Nadal both in outdoor (more Slam titles) and indoor (6 ATP finals), so he can be considered more all-around than Nadal. It doesn't mean that "Federer is better in all facets" (he is not better than Nadal in the Canadian Open for instance). It only means that Federer is better both in outdoor and indoor, and so more all-around as of now.

Djokovic is certainly better than Nadal on indoor conditions (5 ATP finals). But he is not better than Nadal in outdoor conditions (Nadal has 3 more Slams, the Olympic Gold in singles, more Masters 1000, more overall titles in outdoor, etc). It follows that Djokovic is not more all-around than Nadal.

I apply the same criterion to all cases, even when it does not favor Nadal. For instance, Sampras is better on indoor (5 ATP finals) than Nadal. Subsequently, Nadal is not more all-around overall than Sampras. He can be considered more all-around in outdoor conditions, but not overall, because he is only better than Sampras in outdoor conditions.

"A player with 20 outdoor titles and 3 indoor is a worse all-around player than a player with 15 outdoor and 12 indoor titles." Player B is still not more all-around than player A. Player B is only better than player A on indoor. To be better all-around overall, he should better both on indoor and outdoor, not only indoor.

I can also make an extreme example to try to "dismiss" your thesis that it is not necessary to be better both on indoor and outdoor:

A player A with 5 outdoor titles and 4 indoor titles is not a more all-around player than a player B with 16 outdoor titles and 2 indoor titles. Why? Because he is only better on indoor, but not in outdoor.
You misinterpreted my "all facets" idea. I didn't mean at every tournament. I meant at any arbitrary characteristic of the game. If you divide the game up by surface, the best all-around surface player will have the closest distribution on each surface. It doesn't necessarily mean they are the best on every surface.

As for your example, I disagree. I would call a player with 5 outdoor and 4 indoor titles a more all-around player than the other. I would call player B an outdoor specialist, and player A a more all-around player/balanced player. Of course, I'd have to say player B is better in general, but that's a different idea.

A player that can get close to their best consistently on every surface is an "all-around" player. A player that's clearly better on one surface is less of an "all-around" player.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
The roof helps Rafa? Lol. What a complete nonsense post.

The roof has changed the atmosphere and humidity on the court, making it more challenging. Rafa thrives on stuff like that because his game is more adaptable whereas Fed’s per game is lower margin and less adaptable. Fed has never been great at adapting to wind, humidity etc.


? Federer only has 1 Slam on clay. Nadal has won at least 2 Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). So Nadal has his Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface, because 2 Slams on each surface >>> 1 Slam on each surface.

Also, the fact that 65% of Nadal's Slams come from clay says nothing nagative about his Slams' distribution by surface, it only says that he dominated a lot at RG. Sampras won 50% of his Slams on grass. Following your logic (considering the highest winning percetage at one Slam surface as indicative of bad distribution), Sampras would have better Slams' distribution by surface than Nadal. But he doesn't. Sampras has his Slams less evenly distributed by surface than Nadal. Why? Because we need to look at the worst surface percentage. Sampras won 0% of his Slams on clay. Federer only won 5% of his Slams on clay. Nadal doesn't have such a low winning percentage on any Slam surface. Nadal has won 10% of his Slams on grass and 26% of his Slams on hard.

No one said that Nadal dominated everyone and everywhere. No one has. Nadal is only human and, like any other all-time great, his resume is not perfect.

That last part is exactly what I’m saying and I’m not sure why you need to continue arguing about it.

Also I never brought up Sampras, you are barking up the wrong tree. Rafa surpassed Pete a long time ago.
 

weakera

Talk Tennis Guru
The roof has changed the atmosphere and humidity on the court, making it more challenging. Rafa thrives on stuff like that because his game is more adaptable whereas Fed’s per game is lower margin and less adaptable. Fed has never been great at adapting to wind, humidity etc.

More nonsense. Rafa has a tremendous amount of difficulty under very humid conditions.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
More nonsense. Rafa has a tremendous amount of difficulty under very humid conditions.

Difficulty doing what? Keeping the ball dry? Hiding his bald spot?

Rafa is the most conditions-proof player we have ever seen. It’s like I’m complimenting him and you keep saying no, no, no...
 

weakera

Talk Tennis Guru
Difficulty doing what? Keeping the ball dry? Hiding his bald spot?

Rafa is the most conditions-proof player we have ever seen. It’s like I’m complimenting him and you keep saying no, no, no...

Your "compliment" is a completely underhanded way of suggesting the US Open was catering to his needs and away from Fed's. You're doing mental gymnastics to attempt to justify your ridiculous assertion that conditions there became more favorable for Rafael when a roof was installed.
 

Rosstour

G.O.A.T.
Your "compliment" is a completely underhanded way of suggesting the US Open was catering to his needs and away from Fed's. You're doing mental gymnastics to attempt to justify your ridiculous assertion that conditions there became more favorable for Rafael when a roof was installed.

I literally said it was not done on purpose

But Rafa has thrived since the change and Fed has been crap. That is objectively true. Rafa has adjusted much more easily.
 

Mike Sams

G.O.A.T.
No one said that Nadal dominated everyone and everywhere. No one has. Nadal is only human and, like any other all-time great, his resume is not perfect.

Nadal is inhuman on Philip Chatrier in French Open Finals. Not even pushed to 5 sets yet.
 

The_Mental_Giant

Hall of Fame
At the end people try to ignore loses but remember in his weakest slam Nadal has lost two finals at 5 sets where he was leading in the 5th by a break... He has been there to win multiple times, like in Wimbledon 2007 or Wimbledon 2018 even if it was a SF .
 

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
Difficulty doing what? Keeping the ball dry? Hiding his bald spot?

Rafa is the most conditions-proof player we have ever seen. It’s like I’m complimenting him and you keep saying no, no, no...
Well, in RG he always plays better on sunny days when the court is more lively (he has a super hard time finishing points vs Djokovic and the like in damp clay conditions).

He also thrives in the semi-desertic IW where the ball flies, compared to Miami where he gets dragged into mudfights all the time.

This relative weakness has increased with the years IMO.
 
Last edited:

California

Semi-Pro
I think Berdych suffered a lot more when surfaces were slowed. He hits the ball harder than anyone on the tour off both wings and no matter what he does, nothing goes by Nadal or Djokovic. The ball just reacts like it's on mud. LOL

Very true. This is why today's tennis sucks. Courts are too slow, can't play offensive. It is just grind, grind, grind. I get people don't want two shot tennis, but this is the extreme the other way, all defense, wait for mistakes. No attacking play. Boring.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Nadal and Djokovic are the homogenised slow court kings no doubt.

however the best in any sport is always the best attacking players who play with flair.
 

Tshooter

G.O.A.T.
Very true. This is why today's tennis sucks. Courts are too slow, can't play offensive. It is just grind, grind, grind. I get people don't want two shot tennis, but this is the extreme the other way, all defense, wait for mistakes. No attacking play. Boring.

Said the 1970s after watching Borg-Vilas, Solly-Dibbs and many 70s matchups and matches.
 
Last edited:

Fiero425

Legend
Said the 1970s after watching Borg-Vilas, Solly-Dibbs and any number of 70s matches,

….Slow, boring play on clay, not HC and Grass! Come on; keep up! You know better than that! I grew up when tennis was a lot more exciting even with the elites of the game! Borg, Connors, Vilas, & the rest couldn't win them all and were especially vulnerable on the choppy, quick grass of Wimbledon and the quick indoor carpet of the day! Tanner's serve was a great equalizer and Connors dropped 2 matches to the resident of Lookout Mountain Tennessee! Anything you may think is comparable to today is ridiculous! :unsure:
 

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Underrated post. Predicted what guys like @Sunny014 would start doing once the record was threatened before they even joined the forum




Case in point:









"Fed’s not just one of the richest tennis players, he’s by far the richest of any who ever lived. He’s already a billionaire while no other player is close to that. When the IPO for On shoes drops in September, Fed will be a billionaire many times over. "




(y)
 
Last edited:

Sunny014

Legend
Underrated post. Predicted what guys like @Sunny014 would start doing once the record was threatened before they even joined the forum

Money/Brand value is also important
Players play for spectators, not for record books.

So audience will have to consider him the GOAT, or else pointless, and once they do he will become the biggest brand overcoming Federer, until that happens he is no GOAT.
 

OldBalls

Semi-Pro
Money/Brand value is also important
Players play for spectators, not for record books.

So audience will have to consider him the GOAT, or else pointless, and once they do he will become the biggest brand overcoming Federer, until that happens he is no GOAT.

Goat = most money won?
 

Sunny014

Legend
Goat = most money won?

Ok I will answer this in detail on when Novak will become greater than Roger Federer.

Michael Jordan made 1 Billion+ (infact close to 2 billion now) from Basketball, Roger Federer has made almost 1 Billion from Tennis.
This means both of them are the biggest brands ever in their sport and for a reason because fans consider them the GOATs of their sports. Most popular guy is popular because of his game, not because of beautiful face/6 pac abs/some other reasons.. .... Nope.... Jordan and Federer are considered the GOATs by majority !!!

Now why should a fan's opinion be more important than number would be your next question? :unsure:

My simple answer is players play for the fans and not for record books alone, what good is stats if people think you are undeserving or not as good as someone who has similar numbers? So CONVINCING FANS IS IMPORTANT.

2 ways to convince fans that you are the best

01. Your game should be so much powerful and appealing that fans declare you better
02. Your game can be less appealing but your stats should be so far ahead that it cannot be ignored.

Novak needs to cross Federer and build some gap between Roger and his stats (slams), only then will he become a bigger brand than Roger.

Now once he is a bigger brand, he will have to remain the bigger brand for some years so that the narrative is clear in the media on he being the best of all time .....

Thats when current and next generation will start talking of NOVAK as the GOAT and greater than Roger, till then Roger is the GOAT.
 
Ok I will answer this in detail on when Novak will become greater than Roger Federer.

Michael Jordan made 1 Billion+ (infact close to 2 billion now) from Basketball, Roger Federer has made almost 1 Billion from Tennis.
This means both of them are the biggest brands ever in their sport and for a reason because fans consider them the GOATs of their sports. Most popular guy is popular because of his game, not because of beautiful face/6 pac abs/some other reasons.. .... Nope.... Jordan and Federer are considered the GOATs by majority !!!

Now why should a fan's opinion be more important than number would be your next question? :unsure:

My simple answer is players play for the fans and not for record books alone, what good is stats if people think you are undeserving or not as good as someone who has similar numbers? So CONVINCING FANS IS IMPORTANT.

2 ways to convince fans that you are the best

01. Your game should be so much powerful and appealing that fans declare you better
02. Your game can be less appealing but your stats should be so far ahead that it cannot be ignored.

Novak needs to cross Federer and build some gap between Roger and his stats (slams), only then will he become a bigger brand than Roger.

Now once he is a bigger brand, he will have to remain the bigger brand for some years so that the narrative is clear in the media on he being the best of all time .....

Thats when current and next generation will start talking of NOVAK as the GOAT and greater than Roger, till then Roger is the GOAT.
You're just embarrassing yourself -and Federer- now. I feel embarrassed reading your posts. Goodness knows what your fellow Federer fans think. It's humiliating to Roger to reduce his claim to greatness to brand endorsements. It looks so desperate. Please stop.
 

Sunny014

Legend
You're just embarrassing yourself -and Federer- now. I feel embarrassed reading your posts. Goodness knows what your fellow Federer fans think. It's humiliating to Roger to reduce his claim to greatness to brand endorsements. It looks so desperate. Please stop.

Is it wrong to point out the basic fact that as soon as Federer crossed Sampras's 14 with a 15th he was the GOAT because his dominance at his peak was so convincing (he was doing things that even Sampras never did before - 237 weeks non stop at 1, 5 straight USOs, multiple years with 3 slams per year) that everyone endorsed it (they had been doing it even before he reached 14) but Novak hasn't done anything that Federer has not done before to catch the eyeballs of the public for becoming the GOAT instantly after reaching 21, so more work needs to be done for Novak, the narrative needs to be set and it might take some more years of work ?????
 
Last edited:
Ok I will answer this in detail on when Novak will become greater than Roger Federer.

Michael Jordan made 1 Billion+ (infact close to 2 billion now) from Basketball, Roger Federer has made almost 1 Billion from Tennis.
This means both of them are the biggest brands ever in their sport and for a reason because fans consider them the GOATs of their sports. Most popular guy is popular because of his game, not because of beautiful face/6 pac abs/some other reasons.. .... Nope.... Jordan and Federer are considered the GOATs by majority !!!

Now why should a fan's opinion be more important than number would be your next question? :unsure:

My simple answer is players play for the fans and not for record books alone, what good is stats if people think you are undeserving or not as good as someone who has similar numbers? So CONVINCING FANS IS IMPORTANT.

2 ways to convince fans that you are the best

01. Your game should be so much powerful and appealing that fans declare you better
02. Your game can be less appealing but your stats should be so far ahead that it cannot be ignored.

Novak needs to cross Federer and build some gap between Roger and his stats (slams), only then will he become a bigger brand than Roger.

Now once he is a bigger brand, he will have to remain the bigger brand for some years so that the narrative is clear in the media on he being the best of all time .....

Thats when current and next generation will start talking of NOVAK as the GOAT and greater than Roger, till then Roger is the GOAT.

Records are OBJECTICE, if Novak gets every Federer's records the fans can say all they want, saying Federer is still GOAT to their eyes, he is the GOAT because he is the icon of tennis, richest sportsman or whatever. It would be pointless when careers and titles, records will be compared and will turn to Djokovic's favor

A subjective take can never come close to an objective fact.
 

OldBalls

Semi-Pro
Ok I will answer this in detail on when Novak will become greater than Roger Federer.

Michael Jordan made 1 Billion+ (infact close to 2 billion now) from Basketball, Roger Federer has made almost 1 Billion from Tennis.
This means both of them are the biggest brands ever in their sport and for a reason because fans consider them the GOATs of their sports. Most popular guy is popular because of his game, not because of beautiful face/6 pac abs/some other reasons.. .... Nope.... Jordan and Federer are considered the GOATs by majority !!!

Now why should a fan's opinion be more important than number would be your next question? :unsure:

My simple answer is players play for the fans and not for record books alone, what good is stats if people think you are undeserving or not as good as someone who has similar numbers? So CONVINCING FANS IS IMPORTANT.

2 ways to convince fans that you are the best

01. Your game should be so much powerful and appealing that fans declare you better
02. Your game can be less appealing but your stats should be so far ahead that it cannot be ignored.

Novak needs to cross Federer and build some gap between Roger and his stats (slams), only then will he become a bigger brand than Roger.

Now once he is a bigger brand, he will have to remain the bigger brand for some years so that the narrative is clear in the media on he being the best of all time .....

Thats when current and next generation will start talking of NOVAK as the GOAT and greater than Roger, till then Roger is the GOAT.

I actually feel sorry for you. Do you even enjoy watching tennis? Wtf...
 

Sunny014

Legend
Records are OBJECTICE, if Novak gets every Federer's records the fans can say all they want, saying Federer is still GOAT to their eyes, he is the GOAT because he is the icon of tennis, richest sportsman or whatever.

A subjective take can never come close to an objective fact.

Then the objective fact is that Federer holds 300+ records in Tennis, which is by far the most.

So shouldn't he have achieved the most and by the virtue of that automatically be the GOAT ? :eek:

Most Records

 

junior74

Bionic Poster
I don't think so. Borg went further. Sampras went further. Federer went further.

Nadal and/ or Djokovic will do the same. Humankind always stretches to improve and go further.
 
My simple answer is players play for the fans and not for record books alone, what good is stats if people think you are undeserving or not as good as someone who has similar numbers? So CONVINCING FANS IS IMPORTANT.
Federer isn't exactly the unanimous GOAT in peoples' eyes either. That's why everyone has an opinion, lol.
That's why people have been fighting for years over who is the best or greatest.

Some think numbers are all that matter, some think players need their "signature of approval" in order to be considered the greatest. Who is right at the end of the day?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jai

Sunny014

Legend
Federer isn't exactly the unanimous GOAT in peoples' eyes either. That's why everyone has an opinion, lol.
That's why people have been fighting for years over who is the best or greatest.

Some think numbers are all that matter, some think players need their "signature of approval" in order to be considered the greatest. Who is right at the end of the day?

That way from a nihilistic perspective there are no rights or wrongs, even Jimmy Connors has a claim at being the GOAT because he has 109 titles which is even more than Federer's.

In Tennis people play to win Titles and Jimmy has achieved the most!
 

Crocodile

G.O.A.T.
I’m not sure what to make of the whole thing. The fact the 3 guys are all around 20 slams is testimony to their longevity.
I tend want to reserve judgement until Wimbledon is completed as that may put a very different complexion on the whole situation one way or the other.
As things sit right now the impression is that Novak is looking strong and the Roger is fading and off course Rafa is not playing, so it’s Novak.’s to lose.
I think GS record is meaningful
 
I’m sure not many thought Sampras’s record would get broken (or at least not so soon after he retired). IF Nadal breaks Federer’s record while Federer is still playing and then Djokovic does the same soon after does it become meaningless? If one guy dominates like this you can argue he’s just a phenom and a freak. When three guys are doing it at the same time doesn‘t it signal the tour is weak and there’s a real lack of competition? It’s not good for the sport when going into a slam (or just about any tournament) you’re 99.9% certain one of three players will win it. Honestly the best thing that could happen to the sport in 2020 is if none of the big three win a slam. We need a changing of the guard. The sport is too predictable and boring right now.

So to sum it up records only mean something if it is Roger holding them? Gotcha.
 

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
No, the record doesn't become meaningless imo. Records are made to be broken anyway, so there was always a chance that someone would come along in this era who would equal or surpass Fed's 20 GS, especially with Nadal and then Djokovic around, which made three truly ATG's who also continued winning well into their 30's. They stayed longer at the top together than many past tennis greats, and so, with advancements in training programs, nutrition, rehab and recovery etc, they pushed each other to new heights. Records come, records go in sports all the time.
 

DIMI_D

Hall of Fame
I think Berdych suffered a lot more when surfaces were slowed. He hits the ball harder than anyone on the tour off both wings and no matter what he does, nothing goes by Nadal or Djokovic. The ball just reacts like it's on mud. LOL

I was on RLA live for that match it was epic!!!
 

Pheasant

Legend
The breaking of records are never meaningless. The record-breaker would then hold the all-time record and that's huge. Also, just because a legend gets passed doesn't mean he's going to get forgotten. Jesse Owens's records have been shattered. But he's still a legend. Carl Lewis's records have been shattered. But he's a legend. Usain Bolt holds the records, and he's a legend and known by most as the GOAT.
 

StringGuruMRT

Semi-Pro
Ok I will answer this in detail on when Novak will become greater than Roger Federer.

Michael Jordan made 1 Billion+ (infact close to 2 billion now) from Basketball, Roger Federer has made almost 1 Billion from Tennis.
This means both of them are the biggest brands ever in their sport and for a reason because fans consider them the GOATs of their sports. Most popular guy is popular because of his game, not because of beautiful face/6 pac abs/some other reasons.. .... Nope.... Jordan and Federer are considered the GOATs by majority !!!

Now why should a fan's opinion be more important than number would be your next question? :unsure:

My simple answer is players play for the fans and not for record books alone, what good is stats if people think you are undeserving or not as good as someone who has similar numbers? So CONVINCING FANS IS IMPORTANT.

2 ways to convince fans that you are the best

01. Your game should be so much powerful and appealing that fans declare you better
02. Your game can be less appealing but your stats should be so far ahead that it cannot be ignored.

Novak needs to cross Federer and build some gap between Roger and his stats (slams), only then will he become a bigger brand than Roger.

Now once he is a bigger brand, he will have to remain the bigger brand for some years so that the narrative is clear in the media on he being the best of all time .....

Thats when current and next generation will start talking of NOVAK as the GOAT and greater than Roger, till then Roger is the GOAT.
Novak will never be a bigger brand than Fed. He's too polarizing. Just like LeBron will never be a bigger brand than MJ.
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
It might just show how overrated Federer was. Federer is supposedly this mythical god that transcends tennis. Then two other people blow past his record and another shatters the rest of his records.

Not very god-like.

Federer has been reduced to a money-making brand by some of his fans here. Sad.
He is unique to tennis in the sense he is the first ATG bathing in the sea called social media. Tennis fans, for the first time, felt a sense of closeness to their idol. Fed became their tennis influencer, who dictates what they like or dislike about tennis.
 
D

Deleted member 788697

Guest
pqBSJES.jpg
 

Fiero425

Legend
Bump , it seem Fed fans had their copes ready before 21st happened. :D

I'm one that thought Fed should have left after his Wimbledon win in 2012! It would keep him up with Djokovic and Nadal even if they had passed him sooner! Now he's limping out and to this day I don't think winning those extra 3 majors after futility of 5+ years was worth it! He's allowed 2 players to wipe away his records before he even retired! At least when he overcame Sampras, he had been off the tour for over 8 years! Fed's stuck in 3rd ALL TIME as far as I'm concerned! I thought him the best at one time, but he hung on too long allowing Nadal and Djokovic to have their way with him! :unsure: :cautious::rolleyes::giggle::happydevil:
 

NeutralFan

G.O.A.T.
I'm one that thought Fed should have left after his Wimbledon win in 2012! It would keep him up with Djokovic and Nadal even if they had passed him sooner! Now he's limping out and to this day I don't think winning those extra 3 majors after futility of 5+ years was worth it! He's allowed 2 players to wipe away his records before he even retired! At least when he overcame Sampras, he had been off the tour for over 8 years! Fed's stuck in 3rd ALL TIME as far as I'm concerned! I thought him the best at one time, but he hung on too long allowing Nadal and Djokovic to have their way with him! :unsure: :cautious::rolleyes::giggle::happydevil:
.
True, atleast Sampras walked off as the best player of his time and Federer can't claim that.
 
I'm one that thought Fed should have left after his Wimbledon win in 2012! It would keep him up with Djokovic and Nadal even if they had passed him sooner! Now he's limping out and to this day I don't think winning those extra 3 majors after futility of 5+ years was worth it! He's allowed 2 players to wipe away his records before he even retired! At least when he overcame Sampras, he had been off the tour for over 8 years! Fed's stuck in 3rd ALL TIME as far as I'm concerned! I thought him the best at one time, but he hung on too long allowing Nadal and Djokovic to have their way with him! :unsure: :cautious::rolleyes::giggle::happydevil:
Agreed, retiring after 2012 with the record at least allows for two things to happen... firstly, if you retire with the record, you always have an argument in the GOAT debate. Secondly, it allows for the mystery of.... what if he played 2012 onwards, as it stands now we know exactly what happened and the mystery is removed.
 
Top