Luke Jenson says Fed not Best of All time

A

Albinoswordfish

New User
I was watching ESPN's advantage Luke Jensen and he said he doesn't consider Federer to be the best of all time. Also he doesn't think he's the king of wimbledon.

According to him Federer needs to do a "calendar" grand slam 3 times to become the greatest ever. Also he needs to win 8 wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon.

I don't agree with this, I think if Federer finishes his career with the most grand slams he should considered the greatest of all time. If he wins a French Open along the way then it should be definite however at this point it looks gloomy for Federer at the French.

What do you guys think of Luke Jensen's comments?
 
Has Jensen even looked at wimbledon?How come he doesnt mentioned that the grass wasnt playing like grass in this match played today?Jensen is a tool.
 
Well, he's not the king of Wimbledon. Sampras still is. If he ties Sampras' 7, then he will be, since Sampras never got 5 in a row. As for the GOAT, I have no comment since that title is meaningless to me.
 
Albinoswordfish said:
I was watching ESPN's advantage Luke Jensen and he said he doesn't consider Federer to be the best of all time. Also he doesn't think he's the king of wimbledon.

According to him Federer needs to do a "calendar" grand slam 3 times to become the greatest ever. Also he needs to win 8 wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon.

I don't agree with this, I think if Federer finishes his career with the most grand slams he should considered the greatest of all time. If he wins a French Open along the way then it should be definite however at this point it looks gloomy for Federer at the French.

What do you guys think of Luke Jensen's comments?
Click to expand...

Ok, this guy Jensen was already on my nerves. These stupid shows that take up about 1/4 of tennis channel programming is nothing short of annoying, and one of the reasons we're dropping the tennis channel (though certainly not the only one) But this statement of his is beyond stupid.

Lets start with the obvious. Jensen thinks that Federer needs 3 calendar slams because Laver has 2 calendar slams. Now I'm not going to take anything away from Laver as he was obviously an excellent player, however there does seem to be a point that most leave out when talking about Laver. 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass, so there were 2 surfaces to conquer, not 4 like there are now. In my opinion the only one that truly has a grand slam of winning at least once on all 4 surfaces is Agassi. So there's Jensen's first problem with his reasoning. The US Open switched to a hard clay in 1975, and in 1978 switched to hard court. The Australian Open switched from grass to hard court in 1988 (this took a long time to find as the Australian Open site sucks, can't even find past winners on the site)

The second problem is this. How many records are actually left that Federer hasn't broken or tied? And honestly the first 3 I can think of are these. Total number of slams, Total number of Wimbledon Titles and Total number of French Open Titles. I think it's safe to say as far as Federer goes, that last one is quite safe. I mean he has now reached his 9th straight Slam final, and even McEnroe said there's no one even close to that record. He's the only person to win 3 of the slams in 3 consecutive years. I mean my god it would take a post to list off all the records that Federer now holds. He's taken so many away from Sampras that it isn't funny.

And how sweet is it, that it was Federer that stopped Sampras from obtaining his 5th wimbledon in a row, only to obtain that this year. Jensen just needs to shut up and get on with his life. Heck I didn't even know that he was a pro at one time until it was talked about once on one of the programs. I put him in what I call the jealous category, he's jealous of the truly greats because he couldn't do anything in his career, and now uses commentating to say that he's part of tennis.

Jukka
 
Luke Jensen was the guy who predicted that Rafael Nadal was going to lose in round 1 against Fish.

No idea what Luke's problem is but I stopped taking him seriously some time ago.
 
bammbamm said:
I applaud you jukka. But some people cannot be satisfied. You can't please everybody.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, but it just burns me when one of these less then average pro players, makes such a stupid statement as he did. I mean he should know better, as he was actually a player, and should know the history of the sport.

And don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with feeling that Laver is the best of all time, whether by statistics and records if it's true or not is another story, but it was that statement of well Federer will have to win 3 calendar slams that got me. It was this all or nothing attitude, it's like, oh I'm sorry Luke, has Federer not broken enough records for you to not even consider him? I mean some eliminate Sampras based solely on the lack of a French Open. I didn't care for Sampras, but until recently even I acknowledged all of his other accomplishments that he definitely was ahead of Federer, and now the differences are extremely close.

Jukka
 
jukka1970 said:
Lets start with the obvious. Jensen thinks that Federer needs 3 calendar slams because Laver has 2 calendar slams. Now I'm not going to take anything away from Laver as he was obviously an excellent player, however there does seem to be a point that most leave out when talking about Laver. 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass, so there were 2 surfaces to conquer, not 4 like there are now. In my opinion the only one that truly has a grand slam of winning at least once on all 4 surfaces is Agassi. So there's Jensen's first problem with his reasoning. The US Open switched to a hard clay in 1975, and in 1978 switched to hard court. The Australian Open switched from grass to hard court in 1988 (this took a long time to find as the Australian Open site sucks, can't even find past winners on the site)


Jukka
Click to expand...

If you think that all 3 of the grass surfaces played the same when Laver played, then you need to do some homework..

Everything else you wrote could be Googled by a 3 year old...
 
Luke Jenson... lol he's the guy that sits there and always blames the last forehand error on the humidity, wind, crowd, or some other random external force.
 
Luke used to play the rebel. X-treme sports vibe and he brought it to tennis. INTENSE, maaaaaannN!!

Now he's an NCAA women's tennis coach and he's clean-cut....a nice guy who raves about Agassi and BJK every chance he gets. He loves tennis, so you can't totally rag him, but I just think he's a little full of himself (as a commentator), and now he's gone all establishment on us. Giving Laver and Pete the kind of props they don't even give themselves. Please. I knew the rebel persona was an act all along.
 
jukka1970 said:
Oh I know, but it just burns me when one of these less then average pro players, makes such a stupid statement as he did. I mean he should know better, as he was actually a player, and should know the history of the sport.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. My initial reaction to his comments was "Federer might not be the best ever, but he's a helluva lot closer to that title than Jensen will ever be."
 
......Hahahaa!!! I happen to like Luke --- but he CAN be a bit of a 'whack-job' at times !! Actually, it's pretty simple...I think 1 more Wimby and even ONE French...and it's a done deal for Fed to BE the greatest of all time...up TO THAT (equal) POINT !!!
While we're talking about commentators...NOTHING matches the apologist/butt-kissers that M.J. Fernandez and M. Carillo were toward the Williams Sisters in the last couple of rounds...geez....it even got ME yelling at the t.v. !! If you look at the preferential treatment that BOTH Venus and Serena got in those (rain) situations...ggggrrrrr.....that's aNOTHER story (thread!!).
 
Yeah, like,
"This Just IN!!!! Here's what Luke thinks of Federer!!!"

Please.

I mean, if you want to sensationalize the story, you can say that could have been Federer's last Wimbledon title. Or the beginning of the end? Or that he will probably not surpass 14 slams?

But to engage in that type of hyperbole.....3 calendar slams! Well done, Captain Obvious.

Please, man. You were a great junior and college player, but it's time to stop craving attention. Be a fantastic ambassador for the game you love. Be a great coach and broadcaster. But this is too much, man. Luke, stay off that strong tea. Use the energy to recruit players for your team.
 
Last edited:
I never seen Luke Jensen on the micro, but one thing is certain: The two Grand Slams by Laver will always be a thorne in the side of all goat pretenders, despite all attempts to diminish them.
 
What an absolute idiot. Winning the grand slam 3 times an wimbledon 8 times??! No one else has come anywhere near that so why the hell should Fed have to? What a stupid remark.
 
That's a favorite among older players. Federer is not the best ever. Fine then who is the best? Sampras.

But Fed is better than Sampras. He is as good as Sampras in grass and hard courts. And on clay courts, he is much much better. Any different era other than Nadal, he would have won multiple French opens. Sampras was never close to winning in Paris.

Also Fed is showing much more dominance and consistency than Sampras ever was. Sampras never matched the Federer years 2004-2006 and maybe 2007.
 
This is how I call a player the all-time greatest if he/she
(1) wins 4 Grand Slams in a calendar year, OR
(2) wins minimum 2 times on each Grand Slam.

To me, Steffi Graf who won 1 Olympic, 4 Australian Open, 6 French Open, 7 Wimbledon & 5 US Open titles, is the all-time greatest.
 
This whole thing is so ridiculous. What is the fascination with this completely subjective distinction? There is no such thing as the best player ever award. It's all opinion, so it could be whoever you want it to be.

I'm probably coming off here as a total jackass, but I don't give a crap who some talking head on tv or anyone else thinks is the "best player ever". Comparing different players from different eras does indeed make for interesting debate, but in the end it's completely pointless.
 
Albinoswordfish said:
I was watching ESPN's advantage Luke Jensen and he said he doesn't consider Federer to be the best of all time. Also he doesn't think he's the king of wimbledon.

According to him Federer needs to do a "calendar" grand slam 3 times to become the greatest ever. Also he needs to win 8 wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon.

I don't agree with this, I think if Federer finishes his career with the most grand slams he should considered the greatest of all time. If he wins a French Open along the way then it should be definite however at this point it looks gloomy for Federer at the French.

What do you guys think of Luke Jensen's comments?
Click to expand...

Greatest of all time should be Bjorn Borg?
5 Wimbledon, 6 French then retired at/before 25yrs old. 11 Grand slams before 25 yrs old.
Didn't play Australian Opens (grass) or will have gotten even more slams.

Fed, Sampras = 0 French Open.

Just my opinion.. ^^
 
I am inclined to agree wksoh. If Borg would not have burned out in 1981 he may hav the record for most Grand slams and I do not think anyone will be able to break his streak of 5 straight French/Wimby Combos.
 
MEAC_ALLAMERICAN said:
Luke Jensen another boring guy, with a receding hairline.

What has he won anyway?
Click to expand...

He's a good player. Which is not the point at all. He's just trolling for attention in the studio....probably wanting some time in the booth or something. As for the hairline, well, he can't do much about that. I'd give him fifty times the flak if he got plugs or a weave or whatever.

As a player, he was a top junior and a force in college tennis. Played at USC. Was a fairly good singles player on the ATP circuit. And good in dubs. Carried his brother a lot. They won the French Open Men's Doubles in 1994, I think. Luke beat Agassi once in a small indoor ATP event. San Jose, iirc. He was a sought after practice partner.
Also, he could hit huge serves and overheads lefty as well as righty.
 
slice bh compliment said:
He's a good player. Which is not the point at all. He's just trolling for attention in the studio....probably wanting some time in the booth or something. As for the hairline, well, he can't do much about that. I'd give him fifty times the flak if he got plugs or a weave or whatever.

As a player, he was a top junior and a force in college tennis. Played at USC. Was a fairly good singles player on the ATP circuit. And good in dubs. Carried his brother a lot. They won the French Open Men's Doubles in 1994, I think. Luke beat Agassi once in a small indoor ATP event. San Jose, iirc. He was a sought after practice partner.
Also, he could hit huge serves and overheads lefty as well as righty.
Click to expand...

Of all the posts in this threads, you had to catch the hairline part? I won't make fun of another hairline again :-(

But thank you for the info, I also know right now he is the Womens tennis team in Syracuse.
 
Everyone has a different concept or opinion of what constitutes the Greatest of All Time. Jensen can express his opinion though I don't agree.
The whole concept of Greatest of All Time is just so much gas anyway.
Comparing players from era to era is fruitless and it all comes down to what most people happen to agree on.
 
luke. thanks for playing but you are the weakest link

Nickname Dual Hand Luke
Country Flag of United States United States
Residence Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Date of birth June 18, 1966 (1966-06-18) (age 41)
Place of birth Grayling, Michigan, USA
Height 6'3 (190 cm)
Weight 190 lbs (86 kg)
Turned Pro 1987
Plays -
Career Prize Money US$1,314,855
Singles
Career record: 12-43
Career titles: 0
Highest ranking: 168 (25-Jul-88)
 
Funny. This same man emphatically stated that Federer was already the greatest player of all time after he won the 2005 US Open.
 
roysid said:
That's a favorite among older players. Federer is not the best ever. Fine then who is the best? Sampras.

But Fed is better than Sampras. He is as good as Sampras in grass and hard courts. And on clay courts, he is much much better. Any different era other than Nadal, he would have won multiple French opens. Sampras was never close to winning in Paris.

Also Fed is showing much more dominance and consistency than Sampras ever was. Sampras never matched the Federer years 2004-2006 and maybe 2007.
Click to expand...

Get Fed more than one rival who grew up on clay and then we'll talk. Rafa is only 21 years old and still has a superior h2h over Fed. In his dominance? Please, this only strengthens the weak competition argument, and shows that Wilander spoke prophetically. Outside of Rafa, this field has no balls! Don't even think of comparing him to Pete. Twice he's played someone new to grass and had a tussle. If Rafa had been given the rest accorded him Roger would be toast. King of Grass, indeed!
 
Rybo said:
This whole thing is so ridiculous. What is the fascination with this completely subjective distinction? There is no such thing as the best player ever award. It's all opinion, so it could be whoever you want it to be.

I'm probably coming off here as a total jackass, but I don't give a crap who some talking head on tv or anyone else thinks is the "best player ever". Comparing different players from different eras does indeed make for interesting debate, but in the end it's completely pointless.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times it's been said, they won't believe it!
 
chaognosis said:
Funny. This same man emphatically stated that Federer was already the greatest player of all time after he won the 2005 US Open.
Click to expand...

That was before he saw him get pushed to the limit by a battle wearied Nadal. It would have changed my mind too! five days of rest and you barely eke out a win against a player who has played 7 days straight. And even then, only after an injury timeout. What tube are you guys looking at? Luke Jensen got it right!
 
Did you catch it when Jensen said Federer as far as all time great players, he is a 2nd tier player.

Assuming Laver, Borg, and Sampras are 1st tier players, you have to put Fed up there after his 5th Wimbledon.
 
From what I've read in this thread, I agree with these:

-Borg maybe is the greatest player.
-Federer is better than Sampras.

But these matters are pretty subjective, though.
 
chris_in_japan said:
If you think that all 3 of the grass surfaces played the same when Laver played, then you need to do some homework..

Everything else you wrote could be Googled by a 3 year old...
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure the difference between grass courts back then was as great as the difference between courts now... Idiot
 
Albinoswordfish said:
I was watching ESPN's advantage Luke Jensen and he said he doesn't consider Federer to be the best of all time. Also he doesn't think he's the king of wimbledon.

According to him Federer needs to do a "calendar" grand slam 3 times to become the greatest ever. Also he needs to win 8 wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon.

I don't agree with this, I think if Federer finishes his career with the most grand slams he should considered the greatest of all time. If he wins a French Open along the way then it should be definite however at this point it looks gloomy for Federer at the French.

What do you guys think of Luke Jensen's comments?
Click to expand...

For starters, Federer himself has said he is not the GOAT.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=115632

As to Jensen's comments, he makes some valid points. However I don't think Federer would need to win 3 Grand Slams to be the GOAT. He certainly needs one, two would be better, but three is unrealistic and unnecessary.

As to your thought that he can win the French for a career GS, but not a calender GS, I'd say that is not correct. The Holy Grail is the calender GS, not merely the career GS. Granted that would still be a great achievement, but not worthy of GOAT status in and of itself. As to having the most Slam wins, I strongly disagree with that notion.
 
GOAT is the dumbest acronym of all time, seriously, the goat? as a brit, it tickles me pink..

It's also a dumb concept, why can't people accept this is a blind alley?
 
fps said:
GOAT is the dumbest acronym of all time, seriously, the goat? as a brit, it tickles me pink..

It's also a dumb concept, why can't people accept this is a blind alley?
Click to expand...

That is a good point, and I brought that up in the past to no avail.

Many acronyms make sense, but being called a goat is does not sound like much of a compliment to me.
lol.gif


BTW- You admit to being a Brit publicly? :mrgreen:
 
Albinoswordfish said:
I was watching ESPN's advantage Luke Jensen and he said he doesn't consider Federer to be the best of all time. Also he doesn't think he's the king of wimbledon.

According to him Federer needs to do a "calendar" grand slam 3 times to become the greatest ever. Also he needs to win 8 wimbledons to be considered better than Sampras at Wimbledon.

I don't agree with this, I think if Federer finishes his career with the most grand slams he should considered the greatest of all time. If he wins a French Open along the way then it should be definite however at this point it looks gloomy for Federer at the French.

What do you guys think of Luke Jensen's comments?
Click to expand...

Luke Jensen is a joke among players, he got this job because of his lound mouth.
 
And Luke Jensen is from USC, a higher education institution known mainly for its cheer leaders, and football players who don't know which classed they signed up for and still are given passing grades.
 
If people enjoyed talking about Goat, they should continue the
topic, if you think it is a dumb acronym, you do not have to join to
this thread. You stated your opinion and if people ignored your opinion,
then be it, you do not have to fuzzing about it.
I also know this discussion maybe fruitless, but I enjoyed reading
threads about it, does everyday gossip has to produce something?
 
jukka1970 said:
Now I'm not going to take anything away from Laver as he was obviously an excellent player, however there does seem to be a point that most leave out when talking about Laver. 3 of the 4 slams were played on grass, so there were 2 surfaces to conquer, not 4 like there are now.
Click to expand...
Now wait a minute, I see this repeated a lot. The grass was not the same at the Australian, Wimbledon and the U.S. in Laver's day. But if you're going to collapse them all into one surface, why don't you do that for the hard courts at the Australian and USO?

This question is for anybody and everybody.
 
if Luke Jenson believes that Federer is not the greatest of all time even if he wins more than 14 grand slams and Federer beat Sampras at Wimbledon 2001, than he must believe that neither Sampras or Federer should be considered as the greatest player of all time. I believe that Nadal is behind Sampras on the list, but that is years from now, but Federer will be there in less than two years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
Luke Jensen is dillusional......
Replies
29
Views
3K
North
N
M
Does Federer-Djokovic feel like the biggest Grand Slam semifinal of all time?
Replies
42
Views
2K
Pheasant
Pheasant
F
Federer says Nadal not best ... yet
2 3 4
Replies
167
Views
13K
aldeayeah
aldeayeah
R
Roger Federer and Pete Sampras: Not Greatest of All Time Article
Replies
31
Views
3K
IvanAndreevich
IvanAndreevich
REKX
  • Poll Poll
How many grand slams (in comparison to Djokovic) will Alcaraz need to become the greatest of all time?
Replies
47
Views
2K
Lleytonstation
Lleytonstation
Back
Top