I'm not greatest player - Roger Federer

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

There is nothing to prove. Learn history!

Exactly. They are arguing against established history, thus the burden is theirs.

 

[BobbyOne]

You're aware that the poster Thundervolley makes The Grand Slam to be literary the only criteria of GOAT (ergo only Laver can be GOAT since he accomplished it), therefore ruling your beloved Rosewall, my beloved Federer, etc. completely out of the equation?

Forza90, I just meant that the Grand Slam is yet the ultimate achievement although not the only main feat.

 

[forzamilan90]

Forza90, I just meant that the Grand Slam is yet the ultimate achievement although not the only main feat.

Wouldn't the ultimate achievement be Win every tournament you enter that year including the four majors? That means an undefeated year. That's way more impressive than The Grand Slam.

 

[Phoenix1983]

THUNDERVOLLEY, as expected, has cherry-picked the parts of my posts he wants to, in order to suit his agenda. He has not managed to disprove my sound arguments (and the more reasonable posters in this thread have accepted that my arguments are well thought-out).

The interesting thing is, I'm not doing this in support of Federer as some God-like figure. I just honestly believe he is the greatest male tennis player so far. I am also willing to rank another player (from this generation or a subsequent one) ahead of him, should they surpass his achievements in coming years. I have no agenda in keeping Federer permanently as GOAT.

I trust that all reasonable posters in this thread will be able to discern which, of THUNDERVOLLEY and myself, is being dogmatic and fanatical.

 

[swedenparty]

THUNDERVOLLEY, as expected, has cherry-picked the parts of my posts he wants to, in order to suit his agenda. He has not managed to disprove my sound arguments (and the more reasonable posters in this thread have accepted that my arguments are well thought-out).

The interesting thing is, I'm not doing this in support of Federer as some God-like figure. I just honestly believe he is the greatest male tennis player so far. I am also willing to rank another player (from this generation or a subsequent one) ahead of him, should they surpass his achievements in coming years. I have no agenda in keeping Federer permanently as GOAT.

I trust that all reasonable posters in this thread will be able to discern which, of THUNDERVOLLEY and myself, is being dogmatic and fanatical.

We already established the guy is a simple-minded hater, move along...nobody to talk to there.

 

[TMF]

Forza90, I just meant that the Grand Slam is yet the ultimate achievement although not the only main feat.

Another words you disagree with TV that a GS is must to qualify for goat.

 

[jhhachamp]

I am not doing this post in response to you, per se, because I know you will ignore the parts of my statement which do not fit your agenda. However, for the reasonable posters on this forum, I will offer the following explanation:

- Laver was generally considered the GOAT (note: generally, as some still considered Tilden or Budge to be GOAT - for the latter, notably Jack Kramer, who held the opinion that Budge was GOAT for many decades, until in his twilight years, he changed his opinion to Federer), because he had the best overall resume of all players. He achieved the following:

- Domination of the amateur ranks (6 majors from 1960-62, including the amateur CYGS, which although a fine achievement, cannot be held up that highly due to the lack of the best players on that circuit and thus cannot really be considered a "true" CYGS)
- Transition to the pro ranks where, after a year of playing second fiddle to Rosewall, he dominated from 1965-1967.
- Dominance in the early Open Era, notably in his CYGS year of 1969, the only true CYGS achieved by a male in the Open Era.

When compared to all previous greats, Laver's resume is slightly more impressive;

- Tilden never won the FO and played in a generally weaker era.
- Budge, despite his amateur slam in 1938, didn't put up the numbers (arguably didn't have a chance to due to WWII).
- Gonzales never won a clay major.
- Rosewall never won Wimbledon.

Laver's dominance of the amateur, then pro circuits, and topped off by his 1969 CYGS, made his career the greatest to date.

Note that the key words here are "topped off". It was never a pre-requisite for the GOAT to have achieved the CYGS, which after all is only one year of utter dominance. It just so happened that this achievement, combined with his previous career, was enough to lift Laver, in many's eyes, just above the previous greats.

During the Open Era, a number of great players came along (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras) of whom none managed to win all four slams during their career, other than Agassi, who is far removed from any GOAT status due to his extreme inconsistency and lack of dominance. None of these men could quite match Laver - although Sampras set so many records in the Open Era, he came very close in many's eyes (indeed, some did rank him above Laver). It was only his lack of an FO title that kept Laver's place secure.

Federer has played his entire career in the Open Era; he broke most of the important existing records in the sport (most majors, most weeks at No 1, consecutive finals/semis/quarters), and managed to win all four majors in his career. The only thing he did not achieve, which Laver did, was the CYGS. The only reason he did not achieve this, in both 2006 and 2007, was the fact that he faced the indisputable best single-surface player in history in the FO final, a man who has won 95% of his matches in that slam without even being pushed to five sets.

The only thing Laver has over Federer is the CYGS. I am not diminishing Laver in any way when I say that, if a man achieves a CYGS in a "Nadal not competing at the FO" year, we cannot take it for granted that he would achieve the CYGS in a "Nadal competing at the FO" year. The flaw in your theory - and I'm not sure if it's trolling or sheer pig-headedness, is that you think because Laver won the CYGS in 1969, he proved that he could, by definition, do it in any era (i.e. even competing against Nadal).

OK, I'm done on this - THUNDERVOLLEY, feel free to reply with your usual poetically-tinged nonsense and call me a 'Federer fringe' member. I think most reasonable people here understand my case.

This is one of the better, more well thought-out posts I have read on this message board in a long time!

 

[LotusTang]

I am not doing this post in response to you, per se, because I know you will ignore the parts of my statement which do not fit your agenda. However, for the reasonable posters on this forum, I will offer the following explanation:

- Laver was generally considered the GOAT (note: generally, as some still considered Tilden or Budge to be GOAT - for the latter, notably Jack Kramer, who held the opinion that Budge was GOAT for many decades, until in his twilight years, he changed his opinion to Federer), because he had the best overall resume of all players. He achieved the following:

- Domination of the amateur ranks (6 majors from 1960-62, including the amateur CYGS, which although a fine achievement, cannot be held up that highly due to the lack of the best players on that circuit and thus cannot really be considered a "true" CYGS)
- Transition to the pro ranks where, after a year of playing second fiddle to Rosewall, he dominated from 1965-1967.
- Dominance in the early Open Era, notably in his CYGS year of 1969, the only true CYGS achieved by a male in the Open Era.

When compared to all previous greats, Laver's resume is slightly more impressive;

- Tilden never won the FO and played in a generally weaker era.
- Budge, despite his amateur slam in 1938, didn't put up the numbers (arguably didn't have a chance to due to WWII).
- Gonzales never won a clay major.
- Rosewall never won Wimbledon.

Laver's dominance of the amateur, then pro circuits, and topped off by his 1969 CYGS, made his career the greatest to date.

Note that the key words here are "topped off". It was never a pre-requisite for the GOAT to have achieved the CYGS, which after all is only one year of utter dominance. It just so happened that this achievement, combined with his previous career, was enough to lift Laver, in many's eyes, just above the previous greats.

During the Open Era, a number of great players came along (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras) of whom none managed to win all four slams during their career, other than Agassi, who is far removed from any GOAT status due to his extreme inconsistency and lack of dominance. None of these men could quite match Laver - although Sampras set so many records in the Open Era, he came very close in many's eyes (indeed, some did rank him above Laver). It was only his lack of an FO title that kept Laver's place secure.

Federer has played his entire career in the Open Era; he broke most of the important existing records in the sport (most majors, most weeks at No 1, consecutive finals/semis/quarters), and managed to win all four majors in his career. The only thing he did not achieve, which Laver did, was the CYGS. The only reason he did not achieve this, in both 2006 and 2007, was the fact that he faced the indisputable best single-surface player in history in the FO final, a man who has won 95% of his matches in that slam without even being pushed to five sets.

The only thing Laver has over Federer is the CYGS. I am not diminishing Laver in any way when I say that, if a man achieves a CYGS in a "Nadal not competing at the FO" year, we cannot take it for granted that he would achieve the CYGS in a "Nadal competing at the FO" year. The flaw in your theory - and I'm not sure if it's trolling or sheer pig-headedness, is that you think because Laver won the CYGS in 1969, he proved that he could, by definition, do it in any era (i.e. even competing against Nadal).

OK, I'm done on this - THUNDERVOLLEY, feel free to reply with your usual poetically-tinged nonsense and call me a 'Federer fringe' member. I think most reasonable people here understand my case.

Great post!

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

THUNDERVOLLEY, as expected, has cherry-picked the parts of my posts he wants to, in order to suit his agenda.

Keep believing that lie.

It is your one and only stab at a defense for a premise that cannot hold up under analysis.

Only a genuine fanatic will ignore history (or is merely ignorant of said history) in order to pump a false premise--the very nature of the rabid Federer fans on this and any other board i've observed.

The amusing part of your self-made drama, is that you (and others of your ilk) have spent a considerable amount of time going from thread to thread, all in a doomed attempt to tear down Laver in favor of Federer* If you were so confident of your (false) premise, the volume of defensive posts would not exist.

The reason is clear.

*The threads are saved, so there's no point denyng it.

 

[World Beater]

Great post from Phoenix1983.

CYGS is considered the ultimate achievement in tennis, but its by no means the only achievement. There are other important achievements that if put together in a players career can be just as compelling as winning the CYGS.

Not winning the CYGS is not a disqualification from the GOAT debate.

 

[Brian11785]

I assume that TV has me on ignore (we've come to blows in the past), but I would still love for him to answer (asking for the fifth time):

Had Hingis beaten Majoli in Paris in 97 and won the Grand Slam that year, would her accomplishment in a post-peak Graf/pre-peak Williams transitional year outshine Serena's entire non-CYGS-holding career?

 

[VPhuc tennis fan]

THUNDERVOLLEY, as expected, has cherry-picked the parts of my posts he wants to, in order to suit his agenda. He has not managed to disprove my sound arguments (and the more reasonable posters in this thread have accepted that my arguments are well thought-out).

The interesting thing is, I'm not doing this in support of Federer as some God-like figure. I just honestly believe he is the greatest male tennis player so far. I am also willing to rank another player (from this generation or a subsequent one) ahead of him, should they surpass his achievements in coming years. I have no agenda in keeping Federer permanently as GOAT.

I trust that all reasonable posters in this thread will be able to discern which, of THUNDERVOLLEY and myself, is being dogmatic and fanatical.

@Phoenix, Good post but as you can see, it's all in vain. I once debunked TV big, big time for him to claim that Laver put Rafa and Fed as equal champions. He repeatedly rejected all my arguments and kept sending me to read what Laver said. Lo and behold, Laver NEVER said anything like that in that published column. Got debunked so big...that's not even funny.
Like some posters here on TW forum, I felt that Laver's accomplishments deserve to be kept in a separate folder. He played in a different time where part of his career was subjected to different rules (amateur vs pro), and other factors such as training methodologies, equipment, technologies, etc. are simply too different to allow for a fair comparison. Thus, Laver can be considered the GOAT in this pre-Open era. That, in no means, is done to diminish his achievements. It's actually a more accurate way to judge him, and pay hommage to what he achieved. TV cannot simply understand this.
For the Open era, Fed has accomplished more than other players...so far. Like one says, records are made to be broken. I have no problem to acknowledge that X player is better than Fed UNDER THE CONDITION that the X player shows better numbers than Fed. That day will no doubt come in the future, but let's be fair and judge by the numbers and not by bs excuses.

 

[Candide]

The fixed beauty of history is that its based not on individual criteria... but the accomplishment within the accepted framework...

When you say history, what you are referring to is actually tradition within a specific closed culture – tennis, basketball and so on. The belief that traditions are prehistoric or from time immemorial is one we attach to all sorts of traditions some of which are quite new – in order to make them seem ‘natural’ and ‘unalterable’ and deeply important. They create an artificial attachment with a long, long past that in many cases does not exist. The reality is that traditions are always being invented, evolved and adapted according to the needs of a particular culture and in order to obscure awkward inconsistencies to facilitate as sense of continuity which is comforting for people.

Here are just a few problems with your immutable criterion of calendar year grand slam as the pinnacle of tennis perfection:

(a) Is it a problem that many more people play tennis nowadays than did so in the early and middle part of the 20th Century (because of better living standards and more leisure time, increased population and infinitely greater prize money) and so with greater participation the pool of talent within which players have to compete is much greater?

(b) Is it a problem that over time the grand slams have been perceived in very different ways by players so that it was not unusual for top players to not bother with competitions like the Australian Open because it was not worth the trouble, the prize money was too low and the prestige had not yet been developed?

(c) Is it a problem that through better, professionalism, nutrition and training methods that a man of the stature of Rod Laver would struggle to win a competition (possibly even a match) nowadays against the hulking athletes who currently dominate the game?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

When you say history, what you are referring to is actually tradition within a specific closed culture – tennis, basketball and so on. The belief that traditions are prehistoric or from time immemorial is one we attach to all sorts of traditions some of which are quite new – in order to make them seem ‘natural’ and ‘unalterable’ and deeply important. They create an artificial attachment with a long, long past that in many cases does not exist. The reality is that traditions are always being invented, evolved and adapted according to the needs of a particular culture and in order to obscure awkward inconsistencies to facilitate as sense of continuity which is comforting for people.

Here are just a few problems with your immutable criterion of calendar year grand slam as the pinnacle of tennis perfection:

(a) Is it a problem that many more people play tennis nowadays than did so in the early and middle part of the 20th Century (because of better living standards and more leisure time, increased population and infinitely greater prize money) and so with greater participation the pool of talent within which players have to compete is much greater?

(b) Is it a problem that over time the grand slams have been perceived in very different ways by players so that it was not unusual for top players to not bother with competitions like the Australian Open because it was not worth the trouble, the prize money was too low and the prestige had not yet been developed?

(c) Is it a problem that through better, professionalism, nutrition and training methods that a man of the stature of Rod Laver would struggle to win a competition (possibly even a match) nowadays against the hulking athletes who currently dominate the game?

Hello, follow socio-historisist.

a) The pool of player is bigger. Yet, empiric observation show that contemporary top players are able to distenciate themselves from their competition in the same extend that Laver was able to do: see Sampras, Federer, Nadal.The later is the player in the history of the sport who has the more margin against his fellow competitor on a surface, despite the larger pool of clay court player.

b) It is one, but it is one we can deal with as we know which are the years in which the top players didn't bother with the AO. In such year, we can put some kind of asterix to the AO titles of some players (exemple: Connors). At the same time, the players who didn't compete at the AO, or whose AO aren't considered as true slams (Borg, Connors) recieve a merit because they had only 3 opportunity each years to win a slam. With this kind of analysis, Connors have less slams than Lendl (7 vs 8 (Lendl's AO are legitimate), but Lendl had 4 slams to compete in instead of 3.

c) Absolutely not, else only the contemporary athlete can have a shot at goathhod. Tennis will evolve in a manner which will probably make look Federer and Nadal as players of the past, who would be unable to compete in the future current condition.

 

[clayqueen]

Federer is right, no one is the GOAT.