Peak/longevity GOAT theory

[Sasuke]

I seem to remember that too or something like it. He threw a hissy fit because they deleted one of his threads and said he was done on the forum.

Ah, then.. the one I saw was another incident. Quite recent one with @La Vigésima ? If I remember correctly

 

[La Vigésima]

Lmao 2011-12 isn’t peak Federer

Lew: "Peak Federer is 2011-18 since better players pushed him to the limit."

 

[La Vigésima]

I seem to remember that too or something like it. He threw a hissy fit because they deleted one of his threads and said he was done on the forum.

That was only the first time.

 

[Prabhanjan]

LOL! How can Federer be not at PEAK?

During 2004-07, Federer won 11 slams, reached 13 finals, missed semi's only once in this run. If you want to restrict to an year or less, only Djokovic's 2015-16 is better than any of Feds.

 

[Jaitock1991]

As peak of play I considered domination and level of the opponents. As longevity the ability to win big tournaments and be top ranked for many years.

Sounds like a good way to do it in theory. My question is how do you objectively measure the level of play of the opponent?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Lew: "Peak Federer is 2011-18 since better players pushed him to the limit."

Players aging improve, if they train and are still motivated. Look at Ronaldo and Messi still destroying defenses at 31-33. Tennis is even a more technical and mental sport. Recently many players had their peak of results in their 30s: Wawrinka, Ferrer, isner, Lopez, anderson, karlovic, monfils, muller, querrey, mahut, cuevas, Lorenzi, Brown, benneteau, darcis, robert, estrella...

 

[Deleted member 742196]

?

Sorry. But you totally miss what me and @paranoidandroid was refering to. The posts that got deleted were from our RF-18's thread where he was using ******, stupid etc words. Hence, got deleted by the mods for the reason as 'fighting' . I think it's reasonable for the mods to delete cat fights posts among members. What it got to do with 'fedcult'?

Whoops. Apologies.

My mistake here.

Thanks for clarifying.

@Lew is one of those unique people that seems to have rubbed people the wrong way. Its not a simple or easy period having opinions in the minority.

 

[La Vigésima]

Players aging improve, if they train and are still motivated. Look at Ronaldo and Messi still destroying defenses at 31-33. Tennis is even a more technical and mental sport. Recently many players had their peak of results in their 30s: Wawrinka, Ferrer, isner, Lopez, anderson, karlovic, muller, mahut, Lorenzi, Brown, benneteau, darcis, robert, estrella...

The more you keep insisting on the absurd claim that peak Federer is 2011-18, the more you discredit yourself as a poster who has anything to say about tennis that’s worth listening to.

Works for me.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

The more you keep insisting on the absurd claim that peak Federer is 2011-18, the more you discredit yourself as a poster who has anything to say about tennis that’s worth listening to.

Works for me.

Everyone should have 1-2 proposterous claims. Keeps the wheels of the forums greased.

Look at the overtime @clayqueen is putting in recently. If she blows a gasket this forum is dead.

All we’ll have left is a Fedr GOAT choir singing in off key.

 

[La Vigésima]

Everyone should have 1-2 proposterous claims. Keeps the wheels of the forums greased.

Ha. Maybe so. Kind of pitiful when this preposterous claim is a sine qua non for every point the poster tries to make, though.

 

[Jonas78]

I'm thinking of a theory about GOATs. I distinguish between peak of play, which is shown in a limited period (years usually) and the abilty to compete at very high levels (slam winning or multiple finals) for a long time.

An Open Era ranking for me could be this one:

Peak:

1) Borg
2) Djokovic
3) Nadal
4) Federer
5) Sampras
6) McEnroe
7) Connors
8) Lendl
9) Agassi
10) Becker

Longevity:

1) Federer
2) Nadal
3) Connors
4) Sampras
5) Agassi
6) Djokovic
7) Lendl
8) Borg
9) Becker
10) McEnroe

Overall:

1) Federer and Nadal
3) Djokovic
4) Borg and Sampras
6) Connors
7) Agassi
8) Lendl
9) McEnroe
10) Becker

There might be a connection?? When you have a very high peak level you can still win in a declined state, thus providing longevity. Like Rafa on clay and Fedr on fast courts...

 

[Deleted member 757377]

The more you keep insisting on the absurd claim that peak Federer is 2011-18, the more you discredit yourself as a poster who has anything to say about tennis that’s worth listening to.

Works for me.

Don't know about 2014-18, but in 2008-12 I'm almost certain he wasn't old.

Here's to you a list of notable players who recently reached their best ranking in the top-50 after their 30th birthday:

Nadal, Murray, Wawrinka, Ferrer, Isner, Lopez, Anderson, Monfils, Muller, Querrey, Mahut, Cuevas, Lorenzi, Jaziri, Benneteau, Darcis, Estrella.

 

[pame]

Is this poster Lew for real or just trolling? Inquiring minds want to know

 

[Deleted member 757377]

La Vigesima, why didn't you tell to those players they can't be at their peak in their 30s?

 

[thrust]

As I said, I considered full Open Era players only.

EDIT: you read it.

The problem with you is that Laver and Rosewall, ages 29 and 33 when the open era began won more tournaments and slams - IN THE OPEN ERA - than many top players who played their whole career in the open era.

 

[thrust]

Highest peak: Djokovic

Longevity: Federer/Connors

Highest Peak: Federer/Laver
Longevity: Rosewall/Federer

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Nobody ever answered to this:

first 38 matches against fab4 aged 17-22: 15 wins and 23 losses
last 62 matches (excluding 2013 in which he was injured) against fab 4 aged 22-31: 36 wins and 27 losses.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

The problem with you is that Laver and Rosewall, ages 29 and 33 when the open era began won more tournaments and slams - IN THE OPEN ERA - than many top players who played their whole career in the open era.

How could I have estimated their longevity if their career started before Open Era?

This is why I didn't consider them.

 

[thrust]

How could I have estimated their longevity if their career started before Open Era?

This is why I didn't consider them.

Because tennis began long before the open era began. The four official slams began in 1925 when the French became open to foreign players. The pro tour consisted of the top players in the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties. Therefore, you cannot discount all their matches before 1968. Gonzalez and Rosewall played each other over 150 times, alone. They also played peak Laver, Hoad, Segura, Trabert and Sedgman on the pro tour.

 

[Deleted member 742196]

Ha. Maybe so. Kind of pitiful when this preposterous claim is a sine qua non for every point the poster tries to make, though.

LOL, I suppose my pity is somewhat in short supply these days - reserved for homeless polar bears on the internet and other messed up things.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Because tennis began long before the open era began. The four official slams began in 1925 when the French became open to foreign players. The pro tour consisted of the top players in the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties. Therefore, you cannot discount all their matches before 1968. Gonzalez and Rosewall played each other over 150 times, alone. They also played peak Laver, Hoad, Segura, Trabert and Sedgman on the pro tour.

Rate pre open era players too, then. I find it hard to rate them.

 

[Tennisanity]

For the big 3
Absolute peak level of play:

1) Federer
gap
gap
gap
2) Djokovic
3) Nadal

 

[BTURNER]

I won't answer anymore about weak/strong era.

Good idea. I only discuss a 'weak era' during a world war or a world wide depression when I literally find a reason why entire continents of players might be compromised in their evolution and growth. Otherwise tennis 'eras' are not prone to wimp out for the convenience of fanboys. It just looks that way to them. Its our mental trap to fall into , not history's.

 

[robthai]

04-07 is underrated. There are no outstanding young players these days.