Not all Year End #1 are equally impressive

NatF

Bionic Poster
so to defend your sugar daddy, you're using your sugar daddy's own defintion of exhibition. makes sense...

how about you try and comprehend the generally understood defintion of exhibition, as in the public of display of something or someones!

You've been given the generally understood definition of an exhibition you fruit cake. An exhibition is not a regular part of the tour. Therefore the WTF cannot by definition be an exhibition.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
"exhibition: a public display of art, products, skills, activities, etc: a judo exhibition"

deal with it!

By that definition all tennis matches are exhibitions. In terms of a sport an exhibition is one which is not fully competition and does not count towards the season rankings.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
So you admit WTF > Masters?

no, both are very close.

i rate the highly coveted masters tourneys slightly ahead of the WTF in relative significance.

RR kills the YEC's true competitive legitamacy. as a spectale and event and as far as entertainment value, it rates very highly.

deal with it!
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
You've been given the generally understood definition of an exhibition you fruit cake. An exhibition is not a regular part of the tour. Therefore the WTF cannot by definition be an exhibition.

you and the d#$% tour and ATP :evil:

think for yourself! the ATP doesn't dictate my life or perspective as it obviously does yours.

so by your logic, all slams have always been the same in relative significance since they have always been awarded the same amount of points by the ATP :rolleyes:

dream on!
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
RR kills the YEC's true competitive legitamacy. as a spectale and event and as far as entertainment value, it rates very highly.

deal with it!

The ATP, you know the organization the professionals all play for, ranks the WTF alongside the Grand Slams, and Masters titles in a tier below them:
2ajn8yo.jpg


Perhaps it is you that should deal with it :lol:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
you and the d#$% tour and ATP :evil:

think for yourself! the ATP doesn't dictate my life or perspective as it obviously does yours.

so by your logic, all slams have always been the same in relative significance since they have always been awarded the same amount of points by the ATP :rolleyes:

dream on!

I'm not arguing that the number of points make it significant, that's a different argument. My point is the fact it earns points at all means by definition it is not an exhibition.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Ok, so what you're saying is that greater margins of victory is not an indicator greatness. You can't prove it one way or the other. So take it off the table.



You can't prove this, either. I'm not even sure why you're saying it.



Nobody is arguing about weak or strong eras.

All of your bad logic comes back to two basic things. Is it better for a player to have more slams but less years being the best player in the field? Or is it better to have more years being the best player in the field but less slams.

You have to make your own mind up with whatever justifications you see fit.

Greater margins are indication of greatness, but not the only indicator.

Your last question. Obviously you didn't specify, but I assume you are talking Pete having more years nr.1 vs Fed less years and more slams.

Actually Fed has more time being nr.1. Year end is not spending entire year being nr.1. It only means you are nr.1 last week. That's why Federer still has more years being nr.1 in total.

But, I still admit, Pete's consecutive 6 year end nr.1 is an amazing record. Hard to say which record is greater. Fed's total weeks nr.1 or Pete's 6 years ending nr.1. Maybe it's Pete, I always found this record incredible.

But still this thread is not about this. It's that Pete had to win a lot less to be nr.1. So, all nr.1s aren't created equals. But it's irrelevant to me, since Fed has so much things over Pete that it's a waste of time really to go into details and find something extra to prove Fed is better. We can pick a lot of things, nobody even disputes that.

I guess we will have to disagree. You say it's irrelevant by how much you win or become nr.1, I say degree of dominance or win margins as you call it is part of greatness. There is reason people praise Rafa for winning a tournament without losing a set. But hey, we can disagree, it's ok.
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
I'm not arguing that the number of points make it significant, that's a different argument. My point is the fact it earns points at all means by definition it is not an exhibition.

constantly explaining context to you has become tiring.

the WTF is an elite exhibitonary event. obviously i was not using exhibition the way your master defines it, but in the general sense of being a display or spectacle! and the WTF is more of a spectacle than any other event on tour. lots of pompus circumstance and grand ceremony.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
constantly explaining context to you has become tiring.

the WTF is an elite exhibitonary event. obviously i was not using exhibition the way your master defines it, but in the general sense of being a display or spectacle! and the WTF is more of a spectacle than any other event on tour. lots of pompus circumstance and grand ceremony.

DRII, what's your angle? You are trying to convince everyone, but what is actually your opinion? I still don't know.

You think Fed wasn't more dominant nr.1 than Pete? I would like to know what your position is. Do you believe Pete is goat, Rafa is goat? There is no goat?

What do you want to prove and why?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
constantly explaining context to you has become tiring.

the WTF is an elite exhibitonary event. obviously i was not using exhibition the way your master defines it, but in the general sense of being a display or spectacle! and the WTF is more of a spectacle than any other event on tour. lots of pompus circumstance and grand ceremony.

Constantly debunking you has become tiring but still you keep posting...

I define exhibition how Google and various online dictionaries define it. Your definition is detached from reality. Just for the record I don't think the ATP have released a dictionary yet but when they do I'll mail it to you with a box of tissues.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/exhibition-match

(sport) a sports match which is not part of a competition but instead serves the function of demonstrating the skills of the players

The WTF is part of a competition.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/exhibition

(In sport) a game whose outcome does not affect a team’s standing, typically one played before the start of a regular season

WTF clearly affects the players standings.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=exhibition+sport&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=z-_bU5mYGOvH8gfao4KwDw#channel=sb&q=exhibition+sport+definition&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial

A demonstration sport is a sport which is played to promote it, most commonly during the Olympic Games, but also at other sporting events.

The WTF is a competitive not promotional event.

Now which of these definitions would you like to use? :lol:
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
DRII, what's your angle? You are trying to convince everyone, but what is actually your opinion? I still don't know.

You think Fed wasn't more dominant nr.1 than Pete? I would like to know what your position is. Do you believe Pete is goat, Rafa is goat? There is no goat?

What do you want to prove and why?

i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just stating my opinion. it just that hypocrisy annoys me! if your going to only go by stats and strict ATP classification, then don't dare try to bring in subjective/qualitative criteria! many of these posters, mostly fedephants or Nadal-haters, try to have it both ways :twisted:

like i've said before, Federer is the relative GOAT in my book cemented by his 2012 performance. Nadal is very close, but not quite there yet overall IMO...
 
Last edited:

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Constantly debunking you has become tiring but still you keep posting...

I define exhibition how Google and various online dictionaries define it. Your definition is detached from reality. Just for the record I don't think the ATP have released a dictionary yet but when they do I'll mail it to you with a box of tissues.

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/exhibition-match



The WTF is part of a competition.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/exhibition



WTF clearly affects the players standings.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=exhibition+sport&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=z-_bU5mYGOvH8gfao4KwDw#channel=sb&q=exhibition+sport+definition&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial



The WTF is a competitive not promotional event.

Now which of these definitions would you like to use? :lol:

i already showed you the definition i used, the generally understood definition. if you could follow context, it wouldn't have to be explained to you!

again, since you need things repeated: YEC/WTF = elite exhibtionary event (Triple E)!

deal with it...

just in case you don't have a thesaurus handy:

synonyms:

(public) display, show, showing, presentation, demonstration, exposition, showcase, exhibit
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
i already showed you the definition i used, the generally understood definition. if you could follow context, it wouldn't have to be explained to you!

again, since you need things repeated: YEC/WTF = elite exhibtionary event (Triple E)!

deal with it...

just in case you don't have a thesaurus handy:

synonyms:

(public) display, show, showing, presentation, demonstration, exposition, showcase, exhibit

Are Slams exhibitions, too? Why don't you answer my question?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
i already showed you the definition i used, the generally understood definition. if you could follow context, it wouldn't have to be explained to you!

again, since you need things repeated: YEC/WTF = elite exhibtionary event (Triple E)!

deal with it...

just in case you don't have a thesaurus handy:

synonyms:

(public) display, show, showing, presentation, demonstration, exposition, showcase, exhibit

Your definition doesn't apply to an exhibition in the context of sports though - ironically it's you who have been unable to use context :lol:

There's no reason why your definition can't be applied to any tournament as much as it is to the YEC...
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
slams (or any other legitimate tournament) aren't played in overall RR format, which is only for entertainment (ie for the spectacle) purposes! huge difference!
 
Last edited:

NatF

Bionic Poster
slams aren't played in RR format, which is only for entertainment (ie for the spectacle) purposes! huge difference!

Offer evidence that RR format is only for entertainment. The fact is that by very definition the WTF is not an exhibition.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
slams (or any other legitimate tournament) aren't played in overall RR format, which is only for entertainment (ie for the spectacle) purposes! huge difference!

Here is the double-standard! Slams are played for entertainment and show, too! Where does it say that "Round-robin = exhibition"? Do tell :lol:
 

DRII

G.O.A.T.
Offer evidence that RR format is only for entertainment. The fact is that by very definition the WTF is not an exhibition.

what other purpose is there for RR in tennis (an individual sport)?

RR greatly diminishes the true competitive legitamacy of the YEC! being able to win after losing in the same event is near blasphemy in an individual sport!

thats one of the main reasons why WTF = elite exhibitionary event.
 

Steve132

Professional
This discussion, like so many others in this forum, has become mired in GOAT talk. To return to the original post, the year-end #1 ranking is a valuable statistic because it can be used to compare individual achievement across generations. The fact that Pancho Gonzalez was a 7 time No. 1 says much about his place in the game's history. Similarly, Sampras's six straight year-end #1's are now recognized as his greatest single achievement.

It seems to me that the point of the original post is that this does not make all No.1 seasons equally impressive, and I think that view is correct. Justine Henin was the WTA's #1 for both the 2006 and 2007 seasons. In 2006 she was just barely ahead of Amelie Mauresmo, who won two majors as opposed to Henin's one (although Henin reached the final of all four). In 2007, however, she was truly dominant and was compared to Federer's performance in one of his great years. For his part, Federer was clearly more dominant in 2006 than in 2007, although the latter was still one of the greatest seasons in the Open era (he won three majors, reached the final of the fourth and also won the WTF).

I see no reason why it is in principle impossible to rank seasons like this. The ranking will reflect achievements such as majors won/finals reached, WTF and Masters titles, other titles, overall winning percentage in all matches, etc. There is certainly room for debate about the appropriate weight to be given to each of these criteria. However, while we might legitimately disagree about which is Borg's or Lendl's or Nadal's best year, it's much harder to do so about McEnroe's, Federer's or Djokovic's. Nor can one maintain that Sampras's 1998 season or Kuerten's in 2000 was as strong as any of Federer's, Nadal's or Djokovic's No. 1 seasons unless you want to argue that all comparisons across eras are impossible. This is not an exercise in pure subjectivity in the way that most strong/weak era claims tend to be.

If we want a true measure of dominance, weeks at No.1 (or rather, consecutive weeks at No. 1) seems to me to provide more accurate information than year end #1's. The disadvantage is that this statistic is only available from the mid 1970's onwards, and does not become really accurate for another decade after that. It is not a substitute for year end #1 rankings, but there is no reason why we cannot use both criteria. Year-end #1 rankings are one of the best measures of career achievement, but neither this nor any other single metric is perfect or tells the whole story.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
what other purpose is there for RR in tennis (an individual sport)?

RR greatly diminishes the true competitive legitamacy of the YEC! being able to win after losing in the same event is near blasphemy in an individual sport!

thats one of the main reasons why WTF = elite exhibitionary event.

Why is it a blasphemy in an individual sport? It's a very competitive tournament with a long history of prestige.

Your opinion and debunked definition mean nothing.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
what other purpose is there for RR in tennis (an individual sport)?

RR greatly diminishes the true competitive legitamacy of the YEC! being able to win after losing in the same event is near blasphemy in an individual sport!

thats one of the main reasons why WTF = elite exhibitionary event.

So you're saying round-robin = exhibition? Where, in any definition, does it say that round-robin = exhibition?
 

mightyrick

Legend
Greater margins are indication of greatness, but not the only indicator.

Your last question. Obviously you didn't specify, but I assume you are talking Pete having more years nr.1 vs Fed less years and more slams.

Actually Fed has more time being nr.1. Year end is not spending entire year being nr.1. It only means you are nr.1 last week. That's why Federer still has more years being nr.1 in total.

That is not correct. The ATP and ITF both issue best player of the year awards. Being ATP YE#1 doesn't necessarily guarantee you best player of the year. Several times, the ATP has chosen a different best player of the year than the YE #1. Borg has been given this exception at least twice.

Let's be clear, the ATP and ITF agree that Pete Sampras was best tennis player in the world for six consecutive years. That is the pinnacle of Open Era achievement.

Federer has five and they aren't consecutive (not that consecutive means anything anyways -- only to Federer fans).

But still this thread is not about this. It's that Pete had to win a lot less to be nr.1. So, all nr.1s aren't created equals. But it's irrelevant to me, since Fed has so much things over Pete that it's a waste of time really to go into details and find something extra to prove Fed is better. We can pick a lot of things, nobody even disputes that.

Sampras was better than the rest of the field for longer than Federer. Federer was not the best in the world as long as Sampras, but Federer racked up more individual achievements in that time span.

Again, we get to pick which one we think means more.

I guess we will have to disagree. You say it's irrelevant by how much you win or become nr.1, I say degree of dominance or win margins as you call it is part of greatness. There is reason people praise Rafa for winning a tournament without losing a set. But hey, we can disagree, it's ok.

Nadal fans can say what they want. Nadal is so far down the list of being GOAT that it isn't funny. Even if Nadal reaches Federer's slam count, he will not have been the best player in the world for as long. Yep, we can disagree.
 

mightyrick

Legend
I ask again, and I won't be surprised if you ignore this question: what is the objective of Tennis? To win titles, or to plan each season so you can finish #1?

The goal of any game is to win. The goal of a "great one" is to be the greatest. You are a fool if you think an active tennis legend has the same goals as someone like Dominic Thiem.

Dominic Thiem wants to win titles.

Roger Federer wants to cement his legacy as the best.

Two very different things.
 

mightyrick

Legend
Has Federer ever said his goal is to end another year #1? No. He has said his goal is to win Slams. That proves Slams > YE#1 for greatness.

So because Federer says his goal is to win slams... that proves that slams are greater than being the best player of the year? Don't really see your logic there, but okay.

And Federer can say what he wants to the press -- sure. Because he knows if he says otherwise, he can't be the considered the best. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. At night, I'm sure the guy has sweaty fever dreams because he knows that by dropping his form in 2008 and 2010 that he has no chance of being the best anymore.

But he shouldn't be that hard on himself. He has a storied career and firmly cemented himself among the greats in the game.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
So because Federer says his goal is to win slams... that proves that slams are greater than being the best player of the year? Don't really see your logic there, but okay.
It proves Federer thinks Slams > YE#1 for greatness. Heck, everybody, even Sampras fans, have Federer over Sampras. So it's not just him.

And Federer can say what he wants to the press -- sure. Because he knows if he says otherwise, he can't be the considered the best. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. At night, I'm sure the guy has sweaty fever dreams because he knows that by dropping his form in 2008 and 2010 that he has no chance of being the best anymore.
In 2012, Federer prioritized the WTF over the YE#1. He lost any chance of ending the year #1 by skipping Paris in order to rest for the WTF. Sure seems like a guy that has sweaty nightmares about not ending another year #1 :lol: You troll.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
slams (or any other legitimate tournament) aren't played in overall RR format, which is only for entertainment (ie for the spectacle) purposes! huge difference!

You and I disagree on the value of the YEC - I think it's among the most important non-slam titles in this era (though I agree with you that you couldn't automatically assume its strength in the 70s, and it really wasn't until the 1977 edition or so when you knew the top 2-3 guys of a given year would be there bar injury, year after year).

I also think another event where you can lose and still win - Davis Cup - is very important, and I rate Nadal's accomplishments (particularly 2004 and 2011) and Sampras's (particularly 1995) higher than Federer and others. I'd imagine most objective folks would do the same, given its history and importance to the sport - even if they prefer other players to Nadal or Sampras.

I also think in 20-30 years, and from then on, the Olympic Gold will be considered more prestigious than either. I think Federer, Djokovic, etc. know this as well as anyone, and are gonna make hard runs at gold in Rio.

So there you have it - since this thread has devolved into a proxy war between Nadal, Federer, and Sampras fans - everybody's got something, Open Era wise: Fed has the most slams and YECs, Pete has the most YE #1s, Nadal has the most RGs, the lone Olympic gold medal among the three, and the best Davis Cup resume of all three.

Just rep your player - don't sh*t all over events (YEC, DC, Olympics) that were around before your guy made his mark and will still be standing long after all three of these guys will have retired to limp around golf courses with steak and scotch bellies.
 

kiki

Banned
Jimmy Connors was ranked number one in 1975 and 1978, not impressive years for him.

Lendl had an unimpressive 1989 year, yet he was ranked nº 1 andMc Enroe had a lousy 1982 when he was still top of the ATP ranks

ATP ranks value 52 weeks, not just majors.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Jimmy Connors was ranked number one in 1975 and 1978, not impressive years for him.

Lendl had an unimpressive 1989 year, yet he was ranked nº 1 andMc Enroe had a lousy 1982 when he was still top of the ATP ranks

ATP ranks value 52 weeks, not just majors.

Agree with a lot of this, though I think "lousy" and "unimpressive" are a bit strong.

Becker had the "greatest" season in 1989 for sure - hard not to love the Wimbledon/US Open/DC triple if you love tennis history - but Lendl was no slouch - anytime you can net a major title, 10 or more titles, and a 90+ w/p in a season, you've done just fine for yourself. I'd take Becker's 1989 over Lendl's any day of the week - particularly given what happened in their big showdowns that year - but Lendl's season was absolutely impressive in its own way.

Mac also had a solid 1982, and a great fall in particular - including his last great DC run as top dog. Think he was on a 25 or 26 match winning streak to end that year before Lendl beat him at the YEC.

Connors had a great year in 1978 too - 66-6 in sanctioned tourneys, with 10 titles incl. the US Open title via his last big win over Borg. Think Jimmy went something like 22-1 to start the year, and had a separate 30 match winning streak at one point later in the season. It's just that Borg's 1978 was a little more impressive - nevertheless, I rate Connors's 1978 campaign as one of the strongest #2 seasons in the Open Era, alongside Novak 2013 and others.

I agree that Connors's 1975 wasn't as impressive - good consistency, but faltered time and again on the biggest stages. Was a bit of a sophomore slump.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Perhaps. But Federer is a more decorated Olympian than Nadal is :)

You got me there, I suppose (and made me laugh) - you'd be a really good press secretary for a politician, actually:

"Roger Federer has received just as many trophies at RG as Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander. Even more impressively, he can actually throw a dinner party with his - so not only is Roger as decorated a player at RG as Lendl and Wilander, he can get far more uses out of his trophies than the others."
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
You got me there, I suppose (and made me laugh) - you'd be a really good press secretary for a politician, actually:

"Roger Federer has received just as many trophies at RG as Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander. Even more impressively, he can actually throw a dinner party with his - so not only is Roger as decorated a player at RG as Lendl and Wilander, he can get far more uses out of his trophies than the others."

Federer may have gotten as many trophies as Wilander and Lendl, but his trophies are different and less valuable. On the other hand, Federer's Gold medal is the same as Nadal's Gold medal. Look at them; they're identical! :)
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Federer may have gotten as many trophies as Wilander and Lendl, but his trophies are different and less valuable. On the other hand, Federer's Gold medal is the same as Nadal's Gold medal. Look at them; they're identical! :)

They are. I imagine you feel similarly about Mac's Wimbledon hardware versus Fed's.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Do these look the same to you?
article-1195531-05791BFC000005DC-77_224x338.jpg

article-2519108-00E7AC0800000190-666_634x494.jpg



On the other hand, these are identical, and the Olympics rated them as equal achievements.
dh_nadal-20120720074902653567-620x349.jpg

Will-Roger-Federer-win-Olympics-Gold-Medal.jpg

Look, we both know how this needs to end, so let's just cut to the chase: if you reply to this post with the word "grandpa," I'll agree with you that Federer's gold medal in doubles is composed of the same earth-based material as Nadal's gold medal in singles, and that they both are identical in structure (if not stature).
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Look, we both know how this needs to end, so let's just cut to the chase: if you reply to this post with the word "grandpa," I'll agree with you that Federer's gold medal in doubles is composed of the same earth-based material as Nadal's gold medal in singles, and that they both are identical in structure (if not stature).

I'm not sure I understand.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
I'm not sure I understand.

I like it when you say grandpa - it's sort of your thing, and I get a kick out of it. Feels kind of like performance art.

If you said grandpa in your next post, I'd be happy enough with you to agree with the point you seem to be making, which is that divorced of the context of the particular event in which the medals were earned, both Nadal and Federer have identical medals made out of gold presented to them by the IOC.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
I like it when you say grandpa - it's sort of your thing, and I get a kick out of it. Feels kind of like performance art.

If you said grandpa in your next post, I'd be happy enough with you to agree with the point you seem to be making, which is that divorced of the context of the particular event in which the medals were earned, both Nadal and Federer have identical medals made out of gold presented to them by the IOC.

Federer's Gold Medal = Nadal's Gold Medal in terms of value. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the Olympic committee.

However, Nadal's Gold Medal is a Singles' achievement, and Federer's is a Doubles' achievement. That said, it's just a 750-event that comes around every 4 years, so I don't see what the big deal is.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Federer's Gold Medal = Nadal's Gold Medal in terms of value. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the Olympic committee.

However, Nadal's Gold Medal is a Singles' achievement, and Federer's is a Doubles' achievement. That said, it's just a 750-event that comes around every 4 years, so I don't see what the big deal is.

Fair enough - I imagine either one could pawn his gold medal for identical value at the same pawn shop, if life ever took one of those unlikely turns.

I know you're on the front lines for Federer, but I really do think the Olympic singles gold medal is gonna be the next big thing in tennis prestige. The every-four-years thing is just gonna add to the exclusivity of it.

Basically, if tournaments had commercials, the Olympic gold medal would get Federer to appear in them. That kind of exclusivity/rarity.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
I know you're on the front lines for Federer, but I really do think the Olympic singles gold medal is gonna be the next big thing in tennis prestige. The every-four-years thing is just gonna add to the exclusivity of it.
Perhaps. Who knows. The fact will remain, though, that during Federer's time, it was a 750-event, and experts will always know that. We don't know what the future holds, so you can't artificially inflate today's achievements by speculating about the future.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Perhaps. Who knows. The fact will remain, though, that during Federer's time, it was a 750-event, and experts will always know that. We don't know what the future holds, so you can't artificially inflate today's achievements by speculating about the future.

Well, I don't go in much for bare appeals to authority re: how the ATP ranks the Olympic games. It's relevant, but subject to change and not dispositive.

We both know Fed would trade any one of his MS 1000 titles for an Olympic gold in singles, for instance - as well as any of his 1200 point slam finalist results.

Back in 2012 - Federer targeting Rio 2016 http://www.si.com/tennis/2012/12/06/roger-federer-2016-olympics-rio

Never - Federer plans to play on through Bercy 2017, or IW 2018, or Madrid 2015, or fill-in-the-blank.
 

Mayonnaise

Banned
Well, I don't go in much for bare appeals to authority re: how the ATP ranks the Olympic games. It's relevant, but subject to change and not dispositive.

We both know Fed would trade any one of his MS 1000 titles for an Olympic gold in singles, for instance - as well as any of his 1200 point slam finalist results.

Back in 2012 - Federer targeting Rio 2016 http://www.si.com/tennis/2012/12/06/roger-federer-2016-olympics-rio

Never - Federer plans to play on through Bercy 2017, or IW 2018, or Madrid 2015, or fill-in-the-blank.

He was in Brazil. What do you expect him to say?
 
Top